Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: timey on 20/11/2016 20:03:43
-
My model of a cyclic universe...
This model is a massive project to describe so I'm going to do it in stages...
Einstein, in his belief of a steady state universe, added a cosmological constant to the mathematics of GR to stop the universe contracting...
(He retracted this constant, and the notion of Hubble's red shift velocities took hold for an expanding universe. We'll get to that)
...hold things there.
We are now looking- without the concept of Hubble's red shift velocities, or Einstein's cosmological constant - at a universe that is contracting.
GR maths will describe a universe that is contracting. There are a few problems, but the remit of my model deals with these problems in the stages that I will go on to describe.
Are we all good so far?
-
Apart from the fact that the most remote objects seem to be moving away from us, yes.
-
A question. If redshift indicates that remote galaxies are moving away from us how far have they moved since Hubble discovered the effect? That is, how much redder is the light from specific galaxies now compared to what it was then? I assume this data has been examined to verify the hypothesis. If not then how can the conclusion be supported?
-
Yes - Hubble's assistant noticed that there was a correlation between observed red shifts and distance. This correlation between red shifts and distance was then attributed to the velocity that the light source is moving away from the observation point.
It was on this basis that the Big Bang theory became popular.
Before I expand into how my model explains the red shifts correlation to distance I'd like to bring your attention to some problems with Hubble's red shift velocities.
Firstly there is Stefan's quintet. Historically speaking this has been a source of argument against the red shift distance correlation in that the observation could describe a type of red shift interaction, although the current agreement is that the phenomenon can be explained as a chance superimposition of a closer galaxy over a further galaxy.
But more significantly, here we can see that as telescopes become more and more powerful, a luminosity problem is also emerging:
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
So can we agree that a) the basis for an expanding universe rests on Hubble's redshifts velocities, and b) that there is cause to question Hubble's red shift velocities?
-
Increasing redshift would indicate an accelerating expansion. And given that the observed light is several billion years old, it would be surprising if there was any measurable change on a human timescale. We might expect that some would have moved beyond he Schwarzchild horizon, but since they would have been very faint anyway, it's unlikely that they were ever observed.
But I guess my earlier statement needs qualifying: the universe was expanding a few zillion years ago.It may now be contracting but we have no way of knowing until some blueshifted distant galaxies appear.
-
Doesn't the fact of increasing redshifts have some bearing on the discovery that the universe, as seen under the remit of Hubble's red shift velocities, is, opposed to the previously held notion, accelerating in its expansion?
It is only under the remit of the concept of Hubble's red shift velocities that a contracting universe would be seen to be blue shifting... Under an alternative remit a contracting universe could also be seen to be red shifted. It depends on how one views the contraction of the universe occurring.
I think you are viewing the mechanics of the universe contracting as all matter returning from its current positions to a point.
My model describes the contraction of the universe much differently as a very slow and gentle affair that picks up speed as matter further clumps.
But can we please agree that the expansion of the universe is based on Hubble's red shift velocities and that there is cause to question these red shift velocities?
-
But can we please agree that the expansion of the universe is based on Hubble's red shift velocities and that there is cause to question these red shift velocities?
About the questions surrounding red shift, and our possible misinterpretations of the observations, I will agree that we may not have things sorted out properly as yet.
-
My model describes the contraction of the universe much differently as a very slow and gentle affair that picks up speed as matter further clumps.
An entirely reasonable model, as I suggested in http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68980.msg502500#msg502500 and two subsequent postings
-
So on the basis of your finding this type of contraction to be a reasonable model, can I ask you to make some reference to Hubble's red shift velocities being open to question before I continue?
-
I see no contradiction. If the universe is a lot bigger than the Schwarzchild radius then there will be more stuff outside than inside, so it is more likely that bright objects will be sucked away from us than towards, hence Hubble's observation.
-
I see no contradiction. If the universe is a lot bigger than the Schwarzchild radius then there will be more stuff outside than inside, so it is more likely that bright objects will be sucked away from us than towards, hence Hubble's observation.
I like your thoughts Alan, this scenario could also be hypothesized as the cause for Dark Energy.
-
So on the basis of your finding this type of contraction to be a reasonable model, can I ask you to make some reference to Hubble's red shift velocities being open to question before I continue?
I am happy to consider your ideas. Just 2 points:
1 There are a number of different ideas out there and Alan's suggestion would be consistent with Hubble observations.
2 When I suggested you post you theory I didn't expect you to start here. Given the importance you placed on the NIST threads I assumed you were going to start showing a consistent theory of standard seconds and variable frequency, so I will watch with interest for this to appear.
3 Whatever you determine for 2 will have to be consistent with the observed frequencies not being blue shifted when moved to height, but only blue shifted when observed from the lower level. So just as SR is a special case of GR, your theory will need to have the correct version of relativity as a subset or special case in your theory.
So I watch with interest until you get there.
-
OK - Alan. I am not sure what the meaning of outside a Shwartzchild radius means, so as an aside, could you explain please?
My model takes the uni of universe to mean 1 verse, and there is nothing outside this universe. Outside of the universe is outside of existence in my model.
But to continue the description of my model - are we all agreed that without Hubble's red shift 'velocities' there is no concept of expansion?
(Colin - thanks, it will get in that area, I'm coming at from the other direction now)
-
The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object were to be compressed within that sphere, the escape velocity from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light.
In effect, it defines the limit of the observable universe within an indefinite medium. Any process occuring beyond that radius would be redshifted to zero before it could affect an observer at the centre.
The observable universe's mass has a Schwarzschild radius of approximately 13.7 billion light years
-
OK - I understand the context you are describing now, but again, this is based on the fact of Hubble's red shift velocities.
Without the concept of Hubble's red shift velocities the mechanics you describe would be null and void.
Without the concept of Hubble's red shift velocities, is there any other observation to support the concept of an expanding universe?
-
Without the concept of Hubble's red shift velocities, is there any other observation to support the concept of an expanding universe?
The law of Entropy suggests that ordered systems trend toward disorder. I believe this might have some relevance when speculating about expansion. Just a thought.........................
-
There are entropy problems associated with an expanding universe also... (See Bekenstien Hawking second law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy law regarding black holes.(that my model resolves))
There is a great chapter in Smolin's book 'the trouble with physics', that gives entropy a thorough run through employing various mathematical methods, (the terminology of which I forget, but not the details). He concludes with a paragraph saying:
"So we can see that while entropy trends to increasing, we must actually state that entropy always increases except when it doesn't"
...(more or less, I doubt I am word for word quoting)
However, these considerations are ahead of topic in this quest to describe my model... For now I just need any replying posters to be on board that Hubble's red shift velocities are the back bone of practically all considerations regarding cosmology, and without the concept of velocities being attached to red shift frequencies, that the concept of expansion doesn't have any other 'observable' means to support itself...
-
Never mind concepts. If more distant objects have bigger redshifts, either they are receding from us or they are more massive than we think.
The suggestion that there is more mass outside the Schwarzchild radius than inside, could account for increased gravitational redshift of distant objects, but it would also make expansion more likely too.
-
I agree with your prognosis for explaining an expanding universe... As said before, this perfectly reasonable logic relies on Hubble's red shift velocities.
Yes - if redshifts are not velocity related, then one could look at mass sizes being bigger, as you say...
The link I provided earlier this thread spoke of the luminosity of distant stars not being dim enough, which also could be indicative of bigger mass sizes further away...
...and there isn't much explanation for why mass sizes should be bigger further away.
But this 'increased mass size' is not the only other possibility of explaining the red shift/distance correlation as an alternative to Hubble's red shift velocities.
We are all clear that the frequency of a red shift is associated with a length of distance called a wavelength, and that the lower the frequency, the longer the length of the wave...
According to Hubble, the different lengths in wavelength are that length because they are stretched by the velocity that the source is moving away from us at. This makes perfect logical sense as the deeper red shifts are from sources that are further away... and as everything originated from a point, stuff that is further away will be travelling faster than closer stuff.
However... my model states that all of the development of mass clumping is occurring in the contraction direction. This development of mass clumping is initiated from the point that my models inflation period, (we will get into details of this later), has resulted in a sea of particles strewn more or less evenly across what will go on to develop into clumped masses with tracts of empty space between.
So - as you can see Hubble's red shift velocities have no place in this arrangement...
My model looks to the tracts of space opening up between the mass clumping development, and observes the gravitational field in these tracts of empty space getting weaker as mass clumping is furthered...
One can view this as a gravity field that was once pretty uniform as a sea of particles, now developing into concentrations and weaknesses of gravity.
My model is looking at red shift as being caused by the development of weaknesses of gravity between the developing concentrations, and blue shift as being caused by the development of an increasing strength in gravity field in the open tract of space between 2 concentrations of mass.
(Please note that a change in the gravity field of tracts of open space can be caused by star/galaxy movements, but when observing light generated in the gravity fields of billions of years ago, can just be due just to the fact of mass further clumping together)
I now wish to move on to discussing how a wavelength does not 'have' to be distance related - but I want to make sure that we are all good so far?
-
Was it something I said? ... Have I been factually incorrect? ... Have I inadvertently insulted someone? ... ?
-
Was it something I said?
Yes.
Your last post. Still thinking about it.
-
Never mind what Timey thinks Hubble might have said, fact is that we know that red shift results from gravitational potential difference and relative speed, and these are precisely predicted by general and special relativity respectively. If there is another cause, we need an experimental measurement that cannot be ascribed to known SR or GR red shift.
-
As Doctor Who is want to say. It's bigger on the inside.
-
OK -well the good thing about what I am suggesting is that is doesn't really change the GR or the SR maths significantly, it just shuffles things around a little for most part. But to explain this first I need you to visualise the context...
So - Let me take you back to the the uniformity of the gravity field that would be associated with a sea of particles...
GR is predicting gravitational time dilation. SR is predicting relative motion time dilation. But in a universe comprised only of particles that are individualities making up a sea, what is time doing then?
There is no 0 gravity for time to be running fast in, and there is no significant motion for time to be running slow in.
This is the only place that my model adds something to the universe. The thing it adds is not something that needs to be discovered. Its already observably there and only requires that we change our perspective on how we interpret observation, and related maths.
Looking at the uniformity of the gravity field of a sea that contains every particle in the universe, one starts to realise that any time dilation considerations must be pretty uniform as well. One also starts to realise that as concentrations and weaknesses develop in this uniformity of gravitational time dilation, that time will be getting slower than it was in some areas and faster than it was in other areas. Current physics will tell you that the concentrations of gravity are running slower time, and the weaknesses are running faster time...
There are several illogicalities here in the face of GR gravitational time dilation that I can outline in detail later...
For now:
My model looks at the phenomenon of a uniform gravity field developing into concentrations and weaknesses of gravity, and the possibility of the existence of an additional gravitational time dilation where time runs slower in the weaker gravity of spaces in between masses.
My model adds a contra directional gravitational time dilation in addition to GR gravitational time dilation, and GR gravitational time dilation then becomes an m near M phenomenon.
This alters the value of g, and G... I have talked about this here:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68863.0
However, this means that the use of g or G in relativity maths already incorporates this concept, therefore it does not alter the maths as such, only the interpretation...
What it does do though is alter the mathematics of red shift and blue shift...
My models development in the contraction direction has no place for Hubble's red shift velocities. But this does not mean that the dimensions of them are meaningless!
Because the speed of light is constant, it can be regarded as a speed, a distance, and a time... and velocity is a speed. So via the speed, distance, time formula, one can give the red shift/distance correlations a 'time' value instead of a speed value. I did post details of how one might go about this previously, (much to all your amusements), but long and short is that the length of a second in the reference frame of space that light travels through is inversely proportional to the energy of the light itself, and a wave'length' is just a case of how much 'time' it took the light travelling at 299 792 458 metres per variable second of that reference frame of space. The light that we observe is the frequency that it is because the gravity fields it has travelled through have stretched them with their speed of seconds.
Red shift velocities have been redefined for the contracting model and - this upholds the equivalence principle as does the m near M interpretation of GR gravitational time dilation...
BUT...now one has to look to how SR is calculated and redress the kinetic energy, relativistic mass concepts.
(this really does get very interesting indeed, especially when considering how a rocket moves through space)
All good so far?
-
My model adds a contra directional gravitational time dilation in addition to GR gravitational time dilation,
and the evidence is?
and GR gravitational time dilation then becomes an m near M phenomenon.
which it is anyway since it depends on the gravitational potential difference between the clocks.
Because the speed of light is constant, it can be regarded as a speed, a distance, and a time... and velocity is a speed.
none of which is true. Time and distance are different dimensions, speed is a scalar, and velocity is a vector. I will however grant you that c is constant in vacuo.
The light that we observe is the frequency that it is because the gravity fields it has travelled through have stretched them with their speed of seconds.
Isn't this just a clumsy way of saying that gravitational red shift is caused by gravitational potential difference, as has been measured?
-
There isn't any evidence that there is, but there isn't any evidence that there isn't either... The description simply is another way of describing the acceleration of gravity and gives cause. And... the end result is that GR no longer required dark energy or dark matter to be dimensionally viable.
The speed of light is calculated in terms of the distance 299 792 458 metres in relation to the duration of a standard second. In any calculation that is concerning light, multiples of 299 792 458 metres can be held relative against multiples of a standard second. I think this could be a useful approach when transposing a red shift velocity into a red shifted length of second.
-
I think this could be a useful approach when transposing a red shift velocity into a red shifted length of second.
So you are saying that the speed of light is variable in your theory?
You said earlier that GR and SR maths would not be affected, but you also say you do not do maths, so who has confirmed this for you. Constant speed of light is a fundamental assumption in both GR and SR.
-
The speed of light is calculated in terms of the distance 299 792 458 metres in relation to the duration of a standard second.
No. The speed of light is not calculated. It is presumed (and found) constant in vacuo and the metre is defined as the distance travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 seconds.
-
Colin - As per the equivalence principle, the speed of light traveling through reference frames of variably lengthed seconds, will always travel at 299 792 458 metres per the second of that reference frame - and therefore the 'speed' of light remains constant.
(Please note: this also renders distance as a constant.)
I did not say that GR and SR maths would not be changed, I said that they would be reshuffled and that the values that are already being calculated will remain proportional under the new remit...
No I do not know how to write maths as notation, but juggling mechanics and architecture is just a case of matching moving shapes and lines.
-
Colin - As per the equivalence principle, the speed of light ....
Not equivalence principle, Maxwell's equations
No I do not know how to write maths as notation, but juggling mechanics and architecture is just a case of matching moving shapes and lines.
OK, we can do ST diagrams.
-
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath613/kmath613.htm
I just do everything in my head Colin. ...But I did make a diagram that equalises the standard second in relation to distance in a Newtonian setting, that does describe my additional time dilation, (amongst other things). I could send it to you via pm if you like.
-
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath613/kmath613.htm
Thanks, we know that, but it is still Maxwell not equivalence principle.
I just do I did make a diagram that equalises the standard second in relation to distance in a Newtonian setting, that does describe my additional time dilation, (amongst other things). I could send it to you via pm if you like.
OK, or post it here.
Does it show your relationship of frequency vs height?
-
Colin - did you read and take on board this bit of the link?
""In his encyclopedia article on “Attraction” Maxwell did suggest one possible representation of the gravitational force in terms of a dynamical field that he hadn’t mentioned in 1864. After explaining how forces (such as electricity and magnetism) that are repulsive between “like” bodies may be represented in terms of a medium in a state of stress “consisting of tension along the lines of force and pressure in all directions at right angles to the lines of force”, he turns again to the vexing problem of gravity.
"To account for such a force [of attraction between like bodies] by means of stress in an intervening medium, on the plan adopted for electric and magnetic forces, we must assume a stress of an opposite kind from that already mentioned. We must suppose that there is a pressure in the direction of the lines of force, combined with a tension in all directions at right angles to the lines of force. Such a state of stress would, no doubt, account for the observed effects of gravitation. We have not, however, been able hitherto to imagine any physical cause for such a state of stress. "
""
(Not my italics btw)
... Why would I need to give frequencies and heights? GR is giving them for me.
And... I do not wish to publicly post my diagram.
-
Colin - did you read and take on board this bit of the link?
Yes, and it is irrelevant to the comment I was making which was about this statement:
As per the equivalence principle, the speed of light traveling ........ and therefore the 'speed' of light remains constant.
The constancy of the speed of light for an observer comes from Maxwell's equations for emr . Equivalence principle is to do with similarity between inertial and gravitational mass. (although it does give a reason why a distant observer might measure the speed of light to differ in an accelerating frame.)
... Why would I need to give frequencies and heights? GR is giving them for me.
So everyone can see how you are deriving them?
GR doesn't give them, unless you are agreeing that they are all relative and frequency of say Cs is same when measured at all heights?
-
Colin - a red shift frequency is not derived, it is observed.
A red shift velocity is derived.
I am simply ditching the notion attached to the 'length' of a wavelength being velocity related and attributing this 'length' as being time related.
Calculation:
e of wavelength is inversely proportional to length of second.
By taking the distance to light source, calculating the gravity field of the space in between and working out what wavelength the light had when it was emitted, one can then calculate how the gravitational field medium of this 'contra directional gravitational time dilation' that I have added to the universe has changed the frequency of the light as it has been stretched by its journey through the slower time in the empty space between source and observation.
I do not really think it relevant that Maxwell did not derive the equivalence principle. I think it is relevant that under the remit of my suggestion the equivalence principle is upheld.
Clearly the equivalence principle will also be upheld when I say that an atom with rest mass will experience an increase in energy at elevation due to an increase in gravity potential energy where:
Calculation: the value of m does not affect the value of gravity potential that m experiences near M, and that height in relation to M is the deriving factor.
And - under this remit, the quote from Maxwell is indeed highly relevant...
-
Maxwell's "stress in a medium" reeks of aether. If you are going to pursue his analogy for gravitation, you had better be prpared to demonstrate the properties of the medium.
-
The gravity field associated with open space surrounding M that decreases via the inverse square law with distance from M is the medium, and the contra directional gravitational time dilation, (that I have added), caused by this medium is the stress factor.
-
I do not really think it relevant that Maxwell did not derive the equivalence principle.
I think you've misunderstood the point I was making, so let's forget it OK.
I am simply ditching the notion attached to the 'length' of a wavelength being velocity related and attributing this 'length' as being time related.
This really is not ditchable. You cannot say it is not velocity related just as you cannot say it is not time related (via frequency) but time cancels out of the calculation leaving only distance.
Calculation:
e of wavelength is inversely proportional to length of second.
Not unless you have discovered a whole new theory of wave propagation.
By taking the distance to light source, calculating the gravity field of the space in between and working out what wavelength the light had when it was emitted, one can then calculate how the gravitational field medium of this 'contra directional gravitational time dilation' that I have added to the universe has changed the frequency of the light as it has been stretched by its journey through the slower time in the empty space between source and observation.
So unlike GR, the passage through the intervening space affects the final KE?
What is the justification for the 'contradirectional gravitational time dilation'?
Without seeing example calculations it is very difficult to see what you are actually doing and how any of this makes sense.
-
Colin - if you cannot understand that there is no place for Hubble's red shift velocities in a model of a cyclic universe that makes all of its development in the contraction direction, as I explained in the first stage of the explanation of this model, then anything else that follows will be incomprehensible to you...
You do understand that it is due to Hubble's red shift velocities that the current model of an expanding universe exists?
-
Colin - if you cannot understand that there is no place for Hubble's red shift velocities in a model of a cyclic universe
Yes I do understand that in the context of your model. However, my questions and comments are not directed at that assumption, but are related to your methodology for demonstrating it.
Without details of your calculations and methodology it is impossible to see how you are deriving your conclusions.
-
Colin - I read a lot of books about physics including information about where physics experiences problems and then applied logic.
I cannot write the logic in mathematical notation which is why I am here on the forum asking for help.
If I were able to describe the logic in mathematical notation I would not be here asking for help with it, I would have presented my model straight to peer review.
I can understand that it might seem impossible that I could derive a model of a universe without employing some type of recognisable methodology to purpose. But for me I am merely thinking about a problem in the same sort of terms that I employ to understand anything. And this just incorporates moving scenarios based on observation and given parameters around in my head (much like computer simulation) from every different perspective to see how they work under different remits...
Much like scales in music, there are only some scenarios that will work with each other harmonically, and this limits the physical possibilities by elimination.
I'm sorry Colin, but that is the best I can do. I did not go to school. My brain does not use the same methodology as yours. I have arrived at my conclusions (after over 8 years of serious thinking btw) by means of a route you simply would not recognise.
-
There are certain things that must be understood before any hypothesis can be developed. Firstly you need to understand how to model observable phenomena and how this model may predict the outcomes of those phenomena. If predictions do not match with the results of further experimentation then the model is incorrect. This all requires an understanding of how certain quantities are made up, what their constituent dimensions are. Also how to correctly manipulate those values mathematically. Even geometry is mathematically based. If you don't have the mathematics how can you have a model of the phenomena?
-
I understand how the model fits together mathematically. I do understand maths. I just don't know how to write it out in notation that you may understand it is all...
Now do you wish me to describe my model in words that someone who does know how to write mathematical notation may calculate this model... or not?
-
I have arrived at my conclusions (after over 8 years of serious thinking btw) by means of a route you simply would not recognise.
The route doesn't matter - as long as you are not claiming, like some here, that your ideas were revealed to you by aliens - what does matter is that you make your ideas as understandable as possible.
Now do you wish me to describe my model in words that someone who does know how to write mathematical notation may calculate this model... or not?
Yes, BUT.
The but is that, as above, it need to be understandable.
When you say things like "I am simply ditching the notion attached to the 'length' of a wavelength being velocity related and attributing this 'length' as being time related." and "Calculation: e of wavelength is inversely proportional to length of second." you clearly have an idea in mind but the way you describe it makes no sense physically or mathematically so you need to find alternative ways of describing it. Otherwise none of us can turn it into mathematical notation. That's why I suggested examples.
Please continue, but bear in mind that our comments and questions reflect the fact that you are not getting your message across.
-
Erm... Nope, aliens have not told me anything...
It has (chuckle)) crossed my mind that I might be an alien trying to tell you lot something. I have indeed made a thorough check for scale, tail, or any peculiarities at-all to my seemingly humanoid veil. And you know... the psychology books tell me that it is quite normal to find oneself feeling alienated...
Ok - you are not understanding how a length of distance (such as a wavelength) can remain the same length under the premiss of variable time, so:
Thought experiment;
Part 1:
We ask Janet and John to make some measuring tests. We give them a car that runs at a constant of 10 metres per second and has a mechanism that makes a mark on the track for every metre that it travels. We ask Janet and John to start driving when the green light shows on the dash board and stop when the red light shows. Janet and John take off at exactly 10 metres per second maintaining this constant speed and stop 10 seconds later. We can see 100 marks evenly marked out on the track in lane 1. The space between each marker is 1 metre long.
Now, without telling Janet and John what we have done, we extend the length of a second by 10% via the timing between the green start light and red stoplight, and ask Janet and John to drive for 100 metres up lane 2 of the track. After 10 of those lengthened seconds have passed, there are now 110 marks on the track and Janet and John's journey length in lane 2 appears extended.
Janet and John are scratch their heads. They reel out a measuring tape, and check that the length of the metres marked out in lane 2 match the length of the metres marked out by their previous journey in lane 1. There is no difference in metre length, just the number of them, and in understanding that a constant speed was maintained throughout, they conclude that a metre must be somehow stretched in lane 2 relative to lane 1.
We suggest that they try lane 3, where we again further extend the length of the second, this time by 20% more than it's original length in lane 1.
Janet and John immediately notice the correlation between the extra distance travelled in lane 3 relative to lane 2 and lane 1.
(Here we can see that the length of a journey can 'appear' to be longer in distance if it takes a longer amount of 'time' to travel at a constant speed. The defining factor is the measuring device. The car is set to make marks every metre at 10 metres per second, and the second it is set to mark out metres at is the original length that a second was in lane 1, and this length of second was not changed for the measuring of lane 2 and lane 3. *this is synonymous to calculating frequency per standard second*...
Clearly if the car was reset to make marks at 10 per elongated second, there would only be 100 marks, and the spaces between each marker would measure 1 metre)
Part 2:
We then provide Janet and John with an exact same copy of the car they are driving in order that they may split up and compare journeys, and we make lane 1 of the track into a 100 metre circle. Lane 2 and lane 3 are 110 and 120 metres respectively as the radius increases.
We decide that we are going to provide both Janet's car and Johns car with an onboard clock ticking relative to a stationary clock in their lane... but we are sneaky! We have made the clock in lane 2 run faster relative to the clock in lane 1....
...John measures lane 1 and to give him a hint we tell him that his onboard clock is running slow relative to the stationary clock in his lane.
Janet measures lane 2 and to give her a hint we tell her that her onboard clock is running slow relative to the stationary clock in her lane.
Both Janet and John tell us that they are experiencing nothing slow about their clocks, so we ask them to check their clocks against each other and they report back that each finds the other out of sinc and running slow...
Janet and John are scratching their heads again... They stop the cars and each studies the stationary clocks located in their lanes, and Janet notices that Johns clock in lane 1 is running slow comparatively to hers, and John notices that Janet's clock in lane 2 is running fast comparatively to his...
So here we can see that Janet and John a) now believe that a metre can be stretched in lane 2 relative to lane 1, b) that time is running faster in lane 2 than it is in lane 1, c) that if time is going faster in lane 2 relative to lane 1, then a moving body would travel further than 10 metres in a faster time, and d) that clocks in relative motion to each other will read each other as being both slow and length contracted.
We on the other hand have the benefit of knowing that a second is running 10% slower in lane 2, relative to lane 1 and 20% slower in lane 3 relative to lane 1.
We also have the benefit of observing all relative rates of time from the observation point of a standard second which we are holding all other rates of time relative to...
But please note that I have made a transgression. One cannot have 2 rates of time happening in one reference frame, or can you?
If we equate Janet, John and their cars as being synonymous to light which has no rest mass, being unaffected by gravity potential, and that things with mass are affected by gravity potential, then we can say that lights wave length does not get longer or shorter in distance, it just takes a longer, or shorter amount of time to cover the same distance, as set out in part 1 of the thought experiment... And we can say that light is travelling through this contra directional gravitational time dilation of the gravity field associated with the open space surrounding M. (please note that a contra directional gravitational time dilation for empty space negates the necessity for relativistic mass, for both light and matter)
Then we can say that mass is affected by gravity potential,(although the value of m does not affect the value of gravity potential m experiences near M), and that time runs faster for mass at a higher gravity potential...
I have talked about adding e to m via temperature in the black body experiment, suggesting that it is the energy of m that is producing the frequency of the light emissions, adding energy increases frequency, and that the frequency of the light emissions can also be viewed as a contra directional time dilation related phenomenon...arising from (what my model suggests is) a GR 'mass in relation to energy' time dilation phenomenon here:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68849.0
-
Now, without telling Janet and John what we have done, we extend the length of a second by 10% via the timing between the green start light and red stoplight, and ask Janet and John to drive for 100 metres up lane 2 of the track. After 10 of those lengthened seconds have passed, there are now 110 marks on the track and Janet and John's journey length in lane 2 appears extended.
No, there will be 90 marks. Or maybe not. You have given inexplicit instructions. The first time, they apparently gauged 100 meters by travelling at a known 10m/s for a known 10s. If you lengthen the second to a newsecond and tell them to drive for 10 news, they will make 100 marks each 1.1 m long. If you lengthen the second and tell them to drive 100m, they will make 90 marks in 9 news. But if you adopt the ISO definition of a meter, they will make 100 marks in 10 news.
"Sod this" says John. "Let's have a snog instead". "I'm not sure" says Janet "our relationship is as inexplicit as Timey's instructions. Are we bro an sis, or just homies?" See John frown. John does not dig street slang.
Janet has a book. Janet opens the book. Janet reads to John. "L(v) = L(0)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)"
John says "If c is a universal constant, Timey is talking nonsense".
Janet is grumpy. See Janet smack John. John has no rest mass. v(Jo) -> c. Estimate Janet's recoil velocity if m(Ja)> 0. John has red shift. See John go red.
-
Bottoms up Alan - Get back on it when you're sober aye ;)
For anyone else, the mechanics of the car are set to make a mark every metre at 10 marks per second in lane 1.
In both part 1 and part 2 of the thought experiment, the second that the car is set to make marks at is not changed for measurements in lane 2 or 3. Only the times between the start and stop light on the dashboard of the car are changed, (ie: extended.)
-
I have a question regarding red-shift,
How can light become red-shifted a longer wave-length than 400nm , which is ''blue'' , when the light between bodies is apparently ''gin-clear'' and not blue like the sky above our heads?
red is ''faster'' than blue but ''slower'' than ''gin-clear''.
-
For anyone else, the mechanics of the car are set to make a mark every metre at 10 marks per second in lane 1.
And there's your problem. Every meter or 10 times per second? You can't have it both ways says Janet - but let's stick to physics. The meter is defined as the distance light travels in a fraction of a second, and a second is defined as whatever the clock reads in the car, which will be different from the second on the observer's clock.
-
Bottoms up Alan - Get back on it when you're sober aye ;
For anyone else, the mechanics of the car are set to make a mark every metre at 10 marks per second in lane 1.
Alan is right.
Now, without telling Janet and John what we have done, we extend the length of a second by 10% via the timing between the green start light and red stoplight, and ask Janet and John to drive for 100 metres up lane 2 of the track. After 10 of those lengthened seconds have passed, there are now 110 marks on the track and Janet and John's journey length in lane 2 appears extended.
Fortunately, in the back of the car are their 2 children, Charlene and Darren, who are studying physics at school. Having stopped chanting "are we there yet" they look at the 110 marks on the track which they are told were made in the same time as the 1st journey. They therefore conclude that the frequency of the marks is greater than in the 1st journey and using c=fλ they work out that they were travelling faster than the 1st car and hence covered a greater distance.
They then sit their confused parents down and point out that if the speed of the cars - or light if that's what we are dealing with - is constant so that both cars completed the journey in the same time, then the measurement of distance must be wrong, they then recalculate the distance between marks which is indeed contracted if c is constant.
The problem is of course, as explained by Alan, that you have set up an experiment where you are mixing measurements and calling them the same when they are not.
If you want to do the experiment correctly you need to actually change the 'rate of time' for each car, but start and stop the cars after a fixed interval eg by a flashing light to synchronise the beginning and end events in each frame.
-
Janet and John appear to require an intervention by social services.
-
Nope - Alan is wrong. But why he is wrong is what's interesting...
The experimenters are the people controlling the time here. The experimenters have measured 1 metre. They have said that at the constant speed the car is travelling that 10 metres will be marked out per second as their clock reads. There is no clock in the car at this point. The journey time is defined by a green start light and a red stop light on the dashboard of the car, and the experimenters allow ten seconds as their clock reads between start and stop light on dashboard of car for lane 1.
In lane 2 journey, nothing has changed with the car. It is still marking out 10 marks per second as per the time on the experimenters clock. What changes in lane 2 is that the experimenters add 10% to the length of a second, as read by their clock, to the duration of time between green start light and red stop light on dash board of car.
And the duration of the time between start and stop light is again extended in lane 3...
This part of the thought experiment is designed purely that it may be understood that a) by holding the second that these marks are being measured against constant, that distance will become stretched, and b) that if one then doesn't hold the second that these marks are being measured against as constant, but instead increases the length of a second that the car makes 10 marks at proportional to the increase in duration of time between start and stop light, then the distance remains constant.
Part 2 of the thought experiment is still slowing time down by 10% in lane 2, relative to lane 1 (and the experimenter's clock), and then adds clocks into 2 cars placed in lanes 1 and 2. A pretend gravity potential difference is signified by placing additional stationary clocks in each lane, where the experimenters have made the clock in lane 2 run faster relative to lane 1, (the experimenters have slanted the clock in lane 2 to run at 90% of the length of a second as their clock reads and lane 1's stationary clock reads as the experimenters clock reads) Please note that the time between start and stop light in lane 2 journey is still extended relative to the lane 1 duration of stop and start by 10%...(please remember that the duration between stop and start light on dashboard for car in lane 1 is 10 seconds as per the experimenters clock reads, and as per the stationary clock in lane 1 reads)
Part 2 of the thought experiment is designed to show exactly how, despite the addition of this slower running second, those children in back of car can still come to the conclusions that they have. (these conclusions being current model physics)
There has been some comment about how this addition of a contra directional gravitational time dilation will render the speed of light as variable, but the comment is wrong...
The speed of light REMAINS constant IN EVERY reference frame of the universe under the remit of my model and this contra directional gravitational time dilation that I propose...
But where distance and length are variable under the remit of the current physics model, both distance (lengths of empty space between masses), and lengths (distances comprised of mass between empty spaces) are maintained as constant, and the curvature of space between masses, (ie: not as the crow flies), that 'adds distance' to space, is time dilation related.
-
say that lights wave length does not get longer or shorter in distance, it just takes a longer, or shorter amount of time to cover the same distance,
Lots of physics words here, but no physics. The only thing we know as absolutely true in physics is that the speed of light is constant.
-
...and the speed of light 'is' kept constant under the remit of my model!
Yes, agreed, this is not current physics model, but... divide extra distance by constant speed for extra length of second. What's not physically possible about that?
In looking for a means to ditch Hubble's red shift velocities for a contracting universe of the type I describe, it is a simply solution to state length of wave as a constant, and length of second as variable, for a direct description of the red shift observation to distance correlation.
In fact there just isn't any other possible means of describing the red shift distance correlation for a contracting universe of the type I propose, in much the same way as there isn't any other means for GR to describe the universe without dark energy and dark matter!
-
The experimenters are the people controlling the time here.
No, you are controlling this experiment and the reasoning of Janet and John.
This part of the thought experiment is designed purely that it may be understood that a) by holding the second that these marks are being measured against constant, that distance will become stretched
No, this is not understood. It is you who suggests this conclusion.
If Janet and John are given no information about the travel time, then based on the number of marks and the distance between them the only logical conclusion is that they have traveled further than lane 1 and the distance is not stretched.
If you inform them that the time was the same for each journey then their children can soon work out that is untrue as previously demonstrated - even though they might reach the wrong conclusion.
The problem is that the thought experiment is not a true representation of what happens when journeys are made in lanes with differing rates of time. In your experiment only the clocks are set to run faster, no one ages faster. Let's try a different experiment where the lanes are at different GP and time passes more quickly.
Consider 3 cars in 3 lanes (frames) where time passes at different rates 1x, 1.1x and 1.2x - not just clock ticking faster, but time actually passing faster. Start the cars together and stop them together on the same signal.
Lane 1 rate= 1x. Car travels for 10s, leaves 100 marks and travels 100m.
Lane 2 rate= 1.1x. Car travels for 11s, leaves 110 marks and travels 110m.
Lane 3 rate= 1.2x Car travels for 12s, leaves 120 marks and travels 120m.
All the cars have, in their own lane, the same speed, same frequency of mark making, and same (wave)length between marks - however, all the cars started and and stopped on the same signals. This really isn't a problem for any of the car drivers until one of them wants to measure the length between marks in another lane using the elapsed time in their own lane, then they discover that the frequency and wavelength in the other lane are different to their own.
-
Thought experiments are known for not being true representations. The whole point is to set a scenario with the idea that one thinks in the terms set out to the purpose of an understanding that the deviser of the thought experiment wishes to portray.. (admittedly I could be more adept, but I am trying)
Ok Colin - You have worked out that if time is going faster for Janet and her car in lane 2 then the car will travel further at the same speed. You do recall that a gravity potential difference between lanes 1, 2 and 3 was outlined in part 2 of the thought experiment.
In part 1 of the thought experiment no such GP was added. The experimenters did not tell Janet and John that the time period between start and stop light on dashboard was extended for lane 2, and extended again for lane 3.
All Janet and John were told was that the car makes a mark on the track every metre at 10 metres per second.
On the basis of this information and the premise of their first journey in lane 1, Janet and John can only arrive at 1 of 3 conclusions...
That a metre is becoming longer in lane 2 relative to lane 1. and longer again in lane 3 relative to lane 2 and lane 1.
Or that a second has become longer in lane 2 relative to lane 1, and longer again in lane 3 relative to lane 2 and lane 1.
Or that a second has become shorter in lane 2 relative to lane 1, and shorter again in lane 3 relative to lane 2 and lane 1.
I, the thought experiment divisor, have decided that Janet and John choose to view their part 1 of the thought experiments journey's in lane 2 and lane 3 as stretched.
I, the thought experiment divisor, then decide that the experimenters should introduce the concept of time dilation to Janet and John by making a clock run 10% faster and 20% faster in lane 2 and 3 respectively relative to lane 1...
...But I, the thought experiment divisor, decide that the experimenters should continue not to tell Janet and John that there is a 10% slower and 20% slower rate of time inherent to lane 2 and lane 3 respectively relative to lane 1.
(Please note: there is a distinct difference being drawn between the increased rate of time (ie: faster time = shorter second) for a clock in the lane, and the decreased rate of time (ie: slower time = longer second) for the lane itself. Do I here you ask yourself 'well surely one would cancel the other, right?' ...?
Well now, this is where things start getting interesting, and this is why:
Janet and John are split up into 2 exact same cars and given on board clocks. To bring this into the realm of visualisation... I, the thought experiment devisor, am now going to introduce relativistic speeds to the thought experiment. The cars are still marking metres per second as per the experimenters clock reads, but the speed of the car is now set to exactly the percentage of the speed of light that causes a length contraction of 50%.
Ok - so John is measuring lane 1 which is pretty straightforward. John starts his journey at the green start light on his dashboard and stops at the red stop light on his dashboard 10 seconds later. There will be x amount of marks on the track at the constant speed of y, this being the percentage of the speed of light that causes 50% length contraction.
Janet is measuring lane 2. The clock in Janet's lane is reading normal to her, as is the onboard clock in her car, both of which are ticking at the same rate. She knows that her clock is reading normally because there is no evidence of events occurring faster, or slower in her car, or in her lane. But the experimenters have told her that her clocks in lane 2 are running faster by 10% relative to Johns clocks in lane 1...
I, the thought experiment devisor, have told the experimenters not to tell Janet and John about the 10% and 20% extended time between start light and stop light in lane 2 and lane 3 respectively relative to lane 1...
...Now according to your analysis Colin, the fact that Janet's clocks are experiencing a rate of time that is faster than John's clocks are experiencing, means that Janet's car in lane 2 will mark out more metres than John's will in lane 1.
But when the experimenters extended the duration of time between start and stop light on dashboard of Janet's car, the car also marks out more metres than John car does in lane 1.
So under the premise of this thought experiment a question arises as to what the outcome of these 2 effects working oppositely to each other will do....
...Will the distance covered be 20% longer? Or will the distance covered still be 10% longer? Or will the opposite effects cancel each other out and the distance remain the same as in lane 1.
Before we can really make a definitive answer to the questions I've posed above, we must consider that both Janet's and John's onboard clocks will be slowed by their speed accordingly relative to the stationary clock in their lane.
But hang on a mo, didn't Colin say that if Janet's clock in lane 2 is running at a 10% faster rate than John's clock in lane 1, that Janet's car would travel 10% further than John's car will in lane 1?
...So does this mean that when Janet's and John's onboard clocks are slowed by their speed, that the distance the cars travel is reduced?
"NO!!!" shouts the whole physics community, "You don't understand relativity." ...they chant in unison. "The clock in motion is ticking normally and only appears to be ticking slow to an observer from another frame of reference."...
"Yes, I know..." she said... "But when calculating time dilation for a satellite, doesn't this include the fact that the satellite is experiencing a difference in time dilation due to both the effects of gravity potential difference and relative motion with respect to the comparison clock on earth?"
"Nope" says the physics community. "We still view it as being relative"
"Even when NASA states astronauts on satellites as ageing in keeping with their time dilated clocks?" she asks.
"Hmmm" says the physics community.
"Does the clock in motion appear to be travelling slower as well?"... She adds.
"NO!!!"... they all chant, "But it is length contracted!"
I, the thought experiment devisor, now re-introduce the fact that the speed that Janet and John are travelling at is a percentage of the speed of light that causes 50% length contraction...
If the rate that Janet's stationary clock runs at in lane 2 has a bearing on how much distance Janet travels in lane 2, then the percentage of the speed of light that Janet will be travelling at will no longer be the same percentage that causes 50% length contraction.***
Then we can look at the fact that in simulating a longer second for lane 2 we are stating the speed of light as being 299 792 458 metres per second that is 10% longer than a second in lane 1.
The speed that the car is travelling at is the percentage of the speed of light per second that causes 50% length contraction and this second is as per the length of a second in lane 1. A longer second will result in that speed being a higher percentage of the speed of light per the longer second of the lane 2 reference frame.
You may now tell me that by introducing this contra time dilation that I have compromised the speed of light. But I now refer you back to the paragraph above marked at the end with 3 stars, and tell you that you also have compromised the speed of light...
...In saying that Janet will travel further in lane 2 because her clock is running faster, the percentage of the speed of light that she is travelling at is lower than that which would cause 50% length contraction.
*
Next we can move on to looking at how these differences, when viewed under the premise of the thought experiment, compare when totting up between lane 1 and lane 2, and try to answer some of the questions posed earlier.
But I'll check to make sure we are all good so far...
-
"Yes, I know..." she said... "But when calculating time dilation for a satellite, doesn't this include the fact that the satellite is experiencing a difference in time dilation due to both the effects of gravity potential difference and relative motion with respect to the comparison clock on earth?"
"Nope" says the physics community. "We still view it as being relative"
On the contrary, both effects are always taken into account. Interestingly, the orbital speed at 9550 km altitude exactly compensates for the gravitational shift at that altitude, but for all other clocks we need to apply both corrections to align with Zulu time.
-
Hence the latter comment:
"Even when NASA states astronauts on satellites as ageing in keeping with their time dilated clocks?" she asks.
So the question arises, under the premise of this thought experiment - does the slowing of time experienced by Janet and John, when travelling at the percentage of the speed of light that causes 50% length contraction, cause the distance Janet and John's cars travelled to be extended in the same way that Colin suggests that an increase in the rate of time caused by gravity potential will?
(...and yes, that is an interesting correlation Alan. Further out than this radius, the slowing of time caused by velocity of motion should be greater than the increase in the rate of time caused by difference in gravity potential. The polarities are swapped.)
-
A reasonable conclusion. For any observer in a finite gravitational potential, the maximum gravitational blueshift will be from where g = 0, i.e. "deep space", but there's no limit on velocity redshift.
-
But I'll check to make sure we are all good so far...
Not yet, some points to address before moving to rest of your post
Ok Colin - You have worked out that if time is going faster for Janet and her car in lane 2 then the car will travel further at the same speed.
Didn't have to work it out, it is what we've been saying in the other threads. It is inherent in the simplified examples I gave. Probably my fault for assuming you would understand the implications.
However, one point of clarification, it is travelling further at the same speed only because there is more time in which to do so - look carfully at the example. It may seem a subtle point but it is important.
The experimenters did not tell Janet and John that the time period between start and stop light on dashboard was extended for lane 2, and extended again for lane 3.
All Janet and John were told was that the car makes a mark on the track every metre at 10 metres per second.
On the basis of this information and the premise of their first journey in lane 1, Janet and John can only arrive at 1 of 3 conclusions...
That a metre is becoming longer in lane 2 relative to lane 1. and longer again in lane 3 relative to lane 2 and lane 1.
Or that a second has become longer in lane 2 relative to lane 1, and longer again in lane 3 relative to lane 2 and lane 1.
Or that a second has become shorter in lane 2 relative to lane 1, and shorter again in lane 3 relative to lane 2 and lane 1.
Napoleon once said that when your enemy has only 2 courses of action available to him, and you have decided which one he will take, then you can be certain of only one thing – he will decide to take the third option. Or in this case, the 4th.
Based on the information in bold, Janet and John can only make one conclusion, that they travelled 110m and it took 11s.
We need to clear this up before moving to the rest of your post.
In the example I gave, Janet and John in lane 2 cannot do this measurement, their distance is extended when measured by someone in lane 1, but not as measured by themselves.
So the question arises, under the premise of this thought experiment - does the slowing of time experienced by Janet and John, when travelling at the percentage of the speed of light that causes 50% length contraction, cause the distance Janet and John's cars travelled to be extended in the same way that Colin suggests that an increase in the rate of time caused by gravity potential will?
It depends. They will see the distance between themselves and their destination as contracted, so taking less time. Someone who is at rest relative to them will see them travelling the full 'extended' distance.
(...and yes, that is an interesting correlation Alan. Further out than this radius, the slowing of time caused by velocity of motion should be greater than the increase in the rate of time caused by difference in gravity potential. The polarities are swapped.)
Excellent. We are starting to get into common understanding. Without this you can never properly analyse your proposal.
-
Colin - I was being droll when I said you worked it out.
You will get along a lot better with my posts if you start from the position of realising that you and I already have a common understanding. It's called current physics!
Can we also arrive at a common understanding Colin that incorporates you taking on board that I UNDERSTAND the current physics remit, that you take on board that a NEW model is NOT going to BE current physics, and understand therefore that some of what I attempt to describe will NOT resemble current physics.
Yes clearly in 'reality' the car is travelling in 1.1 or 1.2 'standard' (experimenters) seconds.
But the point of the thought experiment is to treat the extended times between start and stop light on the dashboard of the cars in lane 2 and lane 3 as if the time IN the lane is 10% or 20% slower and look at how this addition might alter the mechanics...
OK?
-
A reasonable conclusion. For any observer in a finite gravitational potential, the maximum gravitational blueshift will be from where g = 0, i.e. "deep space", but there's no limit on velocity redshift.
Alan - Again, I understand the logic of how the current model attributes light with relativistic mass, and then applies the same gravity potential differences that occur for the time dilated clock to the remit of how light travels.
And yes, it is logical that a 'velocity' redshift will not be limited in the same way as a 'velocity' blueshift...
But while the maximum blueshift will (under current physics remit) be from where g=0, where exactly 'can' g=0 when a) the gravity field reduces by inverse square law, and b) the universe is (as per my model) slowly contracting?
The answer is "From nowhere. A light source requires mass."
This model views the situation as being 'contra directional gravitational time dilation' red shifts and 'contra directional gravitational time dilation' blue shifts.
In my model light is not given relativistic mass and is not subject to gravity potential and GR time dilation. Lights wavelength is stretched in the slower time caused by the weaker gravity field of open space surrounding M, that reduces by inverse square law in relation to gravitational value of M...
A representation of this concept and how a wavelength can be stretched under the remit of a slower rate of time is defined in part 1 of the thought experiment.
-
Can we also arrive at a common understanding Colin that incorporates you taking on board that I UNDERSTAND the current physics remit,
If you can take on board that from our perspective it sometimes doesn't seem like it.
...... that you take on board that a NEW model is NOT going to BE current physics, and understand therefore that some of what I attempt to describe will NOT resemble current physics.
Yes, I understand that and would like to help you describe your model. However, how much should it not resemble current physics. For example:
Yes clearly in 'reality' the car is travelling in 1.1 or 1.2 'standard' (experimenters) seconds.
But the point of the thought experiment is to treat the extended times between start and stop light on the dashboard of the cars in lane 2 and lane 3 as if the time IN the lane is 10% or 20% slower and look at how this addition might alter the mechanics...
In that case if "The experimenters did not tell Janet and John that the time period between start and stop light on dashboard was extended for lane 2, ... All Janet and John were told was that the car makes a mark on the track every metre at 10 metres per second." then J&J cannot conclude any of the 3 options you mention, they have to calculate that they travelled further because there was more time. This is due to current physics speed = distance/time and they were not given any information that time had changed, only the experimenters know that. The result is the mechanics, that J&J can work out what has happened rather than be fooled.
If you want to consider the mechanics if time in the lane is slower or faster then you need to make that assumption and work from there.
But while the maximum blueshift will (under current physics remit) be from where g=0, where exactly 'can' g=0 when a) the gravity field reduces by inverse square law, and b) the universe is (as per my model) slowly contracting?
The answer is "From nowhere. A light source requires mass."
This is why I say "from our perspective it sometimes doesn't seem like it." The light source does not require mass, it only requires a difference in GP and at an infinite distance from any mass space time will be flat and g=0. It doesn't matter whether the universe is contracting or expanding.
In my model light is not given relativistic mass and is not subject to gravity potential and GR time dilation. Lights wavelength is stretched in the slower time caused by the weaker gravity field of open space surrounding M, that reduces by inverse square law in relation to gravitational value of M...
Can you explain this apparent contradiction? This is important to our being able to understand your idea.
A representation of this concept and how a wavelength can be stretched under the remit of a slower rate of time is defined in part 1 of the thought experiment.
If we can agree a sensible view of the experiment, because under current experiment it isn't stretched.
Despite what you think, I do want to help work out the implications of you theory, however, it has to be based on realistic maths or people will dismiss it at first glance.
-
Alan - Again, I understand the logic of how the current model attributes light with relativistic mass, and then applies the same gravity potential differences that occur for the time dilated clock to the remit of how light travels.
No you don't. Photon mass is irrelevant to blueshift. It, and clock shift, are dependent on gravitational potential difference, not gravitational force.
-
Can we also arrive at a common understanding Colin that incorporates you taking on board that I UNDERSTAND the current physics remit,
If you can take on board that from our perspective it sometimes doesn't seem like it.
...... that you take on board that a NEW model is NOT going to BE current physics, and understand therefore that some of what I attempt to describe will NOT resemble current physics.
Yes, I understand that and would like to help you describe your model. However, how much should it not resemble current physics. For example:
Yes clearly in 'reality' the car is travelling in 1.1 or 1.2 'standard' (experimenters) seconds.
But the point of the thought experiment is to treat the extended times between start and stop light on the dashboard of the cars in lane 2 and lane 3 as if the time IN the lane is 10% or 20% slower and look at how this addition might alter the mechanics...
In that case if "The experimenters did not tell Janet and John that the time period between start and stop light on dashboard was extended for lane 2, ... All Janet and John were told was that the car makes a mark on the track every metre at 10 metres per second." then J&J cannot conclude any of the 3 options you mention, they have to calculate that they travelled further because there was more time. This is due to current physics speed = distance/time and they were not given any information that time had changed, only the experimenters know that. The result is the mechanics, that J&J can work out what has happened rather than be fooled.
If you want to consider the mechanics if time in the lane is slower or faster then you need to make that assumption and work from there.
But while the maximum blueshift will (under current physics remit) be from where g=0, where exactly 'can' g=0 when a) the gravity field reduces by inverse square law, and b) the universe is (as per my model) slowly contracting?
The answer is "From nowhere. A light source requires mass."
This is why I say "from our perspective it sometimes doesn't seem like it." The light source does not require mass, it only requires a difference in GP and at an infinite distance from any mass space time will be flat and g=0. It doesn't matter whether the universe is contracting or expanding.
In my model light is not given relativistic mass and is not subject to gravity potential and GR time dilation. Lights wavelength is stretched in the slower time caused by the weaker gravity field of open space surrounding M, that reduces by inverse square law in relation to gravitational value of M...
Can you explain this apparent contradiction? This is important to our being able to understand your idea.
A representation of this concept and how a wavelength can be stretched under the remit of a slower rate of time is defined in part 1 of the thought experiment.
If we can agree a sensible view of the experiment, because under current experiment it isn't stretched.
Despite what you think, I do want to help work out the implications of you theory, however, it has to be based on realistic maths or people will dismiss it at first glance.
From my perspective it seems that you misinterpret the changes that I make to current physics as being misunderstandings of current physics.
*
Try applying the speed = distance/time to the LIGO results under the premise of part 1 of the thought experiment, and then remember that a greater gravity field is 'supposed' to slow time down.
*
Nowhere have I read of a model where a light source does not have mass. Light does not generate from a vacuum where g=0.
*
GR gravitational time dilation is an m in relation to M phenomenon in my model that is experienced by m.
An additional contra directional gravitational time dilation is attributed to the gravity field in relation to M of the open space surrounding M that decreases with distance from M via the inverse square law.
Mass of m near M will personally experience GR gravitational time dilation, but will be moving through contra directional gravitational time dilation
Open space and light will only experience the contra directional gravitational time dilation.
Both gravitational time dilations will converge where open space meets mass.
*
Are the LIGO interpretations insensible?
Are the Michelson Morley interpretations insensible?
Are the changes in lights wavelength insensible?
...and thanks! Appreciated!
-
Alan - Again, I understand the logic of how the current model attributes light with relativistic mass, and then applies the same gravity potential differences that occur for the time dilated clock to the remit of how light travels.
No you don't. Photon mass is irrelevant to blueshift. It, and clock shift, are dependent on gravitational potential difference, not gravitational force.
Excuse me Alan. Did I mention gravitational force?
Is it untrue that blue shifted light is thought to have a greater kinetic energy and therefore a greater relativistic mass?
-
Timey in deep space the acceleration due to gravity is likely to be measured in attometres per year or some other such ludicrous units. This is very much indistinguishable from not moving at all over everyday timescales. So can you understand Alan's point?
-
In that Alan has inferred that I don't understand the logic because the effects are due to gravity potential difference (which is what I said) not gravitational force (which I did not mention at-all) ...and then made no point wot-so-ever to distinguish why what I've said is incorrect in relation to his comment, which mentions nothing about the role that relativistic mass does have in the calculation of light, I can emphatically inform you that no I do not understand his point, because other than telling me that I don't understand something that I didn't actually say, he hasn't made one.
You now bring to the table another unmentioned (in the context of Alan's reply) factor, this being deep space...
Are you talking about the deep space in my model of a slowly contracting since end of inflation period universe, or are you talking about the deep space in the current model expanding universe?
-
From my perspective it seems that you misinterpret the changes that I make to current physics as being misunderstandings of current physics.
Then we need to be clearer when we are talking about your amended physics and when you are asking a question of clarification regarding current physics.
Nowhere have I read of a model where a light source does not have mass. Light does not generate from a vacuum where g=0.
But in your theory light is stretched in areas of reduced gravity, hence on passing through an area of 0g it would thereafter experience it's maximum possible shift, yes? It would be interesting to speculate whether such areas would exist in your model.
GR gravitational time dilation is an m in relation to M phenomenon in my model that is experienced by m.
In current physics both m and M experience a gravitational effect. Clearly this is an important difference in your theory, can you expand on this so we can understand it?
Open space and light will only experience the contra directional gravitational time dilation.
Can you expand on why this is so?
Are the LIGO interpretations insensible?
Are the Michelson Morley interpretations insensible?
Are the changes in lights wavelength insensible?
No, but your thought experiment is not understandable. J&J count the number of marks in lane 1 and see 10s elapsed, they then count the marks in lane 2 and see 11s have elapsed. You have given them no information which allows them to concluded that the length of 1m has changed.
Is it untrue that blue shifted light is thought to have a greater kinetic energy and therefore a greater relativistic mass?
This is true, but in current physics it is a consequence of the travel through the GP difference that causes this, just as a weight falling from height loses PE and gains KE.
-
Yes - agreed. I shall employ that approach.
*
Yes - that is correct. Light is stretched in areas of reduced gravity and contracted in areas of concentrated gravity in my model. The only places that will have 0 gravity in my contracting universe are the edges of the universe where there is no more mass.
Yes time will be going extremely slowly in the voids between galaxies in my model and will stop altogether in a 0 gravity field.
*
As I said the GR gravitational time dilation for m near M, and the contra directional gravitational time dilation for the gravity field associated with M in the open space surrounding M will converge in value where space meets mass.
*
Because both open space and light are massless. (relativistic mass is unnecessary in my model)
*
All that Janet and John have been told (in part 1 of the thought experiment is that the car makes 10 metres per second and travels at a constant speed throughout...
What difference is there here to the Michelson Morley experiment other than the fact I am portraying the scenario in terms of expansion of distance rather than contraction of length?
*
Yes - this is the logic that I tried to tell Alan that I understand!
-
Gravitational potential V is a property of a point in space V = -GM/r where M is the mass of the attractor - no mention of the mass of a photon or any other attracted particle.
Gravitational blueshift dE/E = gh/c^2 if h is small - again no mention of photon mass.
If you introduce the mass of the attracted particle you will be talking about gravitational force.
It is important to really, really understand these things, not just to say that you do when you apparently don't.
-
Alan - I am aware that neither mass, nor relativistic mass are mentioned in the gravitational shift equations or gravity potential equations. You have consistently told me this for well over a year now. I heard it the first time.
Is it untrue that blue shifted light is thought to have a greater kinetic energy and therefore a greater relativistic mass?
This is true, but in current physics it is a consequence of the travel through the GP difference that causes this, just as a weight falling from height loses PE and gains KE.
Before I dare step out of the realm of current physics in this particular area, could you please now put relativistic mass for light into context based on Colin's comment above?
-
The only places that will have 0 gravity in my contracting universe are the edges of the universe where there is no more mass.
Yes time will be going extremely slowly in the voids between galaxies in my model and will stop altogether in a 0 gravity field.
So, in the centre of the earth or between masses where gravity cancels out, light will stop?
Because both open space and light are massless.
What effect does it have on open space?
So in your theory how does M affect light?
All that Janet and John have been told (in part 1 of the thought experiment is that the car makes 10 metres per second and travels at a constant speed throughout...
Well, that's not what you said:
All Janet and John were told was that the car makes a mark on the track every metre at 10 metres per second.
From this they can work out that the car traveled for a greater time. Even if they were only told it traveled at a constant speed they could work out that it traveled for longer based on the marks made.
To suggest they assume the length has increased is unreasonable.
You won't get a mathematician to take up your theory based on this thought experiment, it does your theory a disservice.
Yes - this is the logic that I tried to tell Alan that I understand!
It didn't look that way. You said “... the current model attributes light with relativistic mass, and then applies the same gravity potential differences....”
You imply relativistic mass is part of the equation, which it is not.
Alan …..... could you please now put relativistic mass for light into context based on Colin's comment above?
I don't see that he needs to. You can calculate KE and relativistic mass at the blue shifted location but, as I said, they are effects not causative.
-
E = mc^2, so relativistic mass is E/c^2. This has nothing to do with "rest mass" or "proper mass" which is the attractive gravitational mass, and is zero for a photon which does not exist at rest.
-
The only places that will have 0 gravity in my contracting universe are the edges of the universe where there is no more mass.
Yes time will be going extremely slowly in the voids between galaxies in my model and will stop altogether in a 0 gravity field.
So, in the centre of the earth or between masses where gravity cancels out, light will stop?
Because both open space and light are massless.
What effect does it have on open space?
So in your theory how does M affect light?
All that Janet and John have been told (in part 1 of the thought experiment is that the car makes 10 metres per second and travels at a constant speed throughout...
Well, that's not what you said:
All Janet and John were told was that the car makes a mark on the track every metre at 10 metres per second.
From this they can work out that the car traveled for a greater time. Even if they were only told it traveled at a constant speed they could work out that it traveled for longer based on the marks made.
To suggest they assume the length has increased is unreasonable.
You won't get a mathematician to take up your theory based on this thought experiment, it does your theory a disservice.
Yes - this is the logic that I tried to tell Alan that I understand!
It didn't look that way. You said “... the current model attributes light with relativistic mass, and then applies the same gravity potential differences....”
You imply relativistic mass is part of the equation, which it is not.
Alan …..... could you please now put relativistic mass for light into context based on Colin's comment above?
I don't see that he needs to. You can calculate KE and relativistic mass at the blue shifted location but, as I said, they are effects not causative.
I have given indication of the answer to this question earlier this thread. I will repeat myself, but feel we have a few matters to clear up first.
*
Again - I have given indication of the answer to this question earlier this thread, but will repeat myself after we clear up the next comments.
*
Yes it is what I said. If I did not say it directly in the first instance, I certainly did imply it, and solidified the fact of it in 3 separate posts since.
*
Just as the experimenters in LIGO could conclude that the gravity wave has increased the rate of time for the duration of the wave and that the tubes did not contract...
Just as the Michelson Morley experiment could have concluded that light in line to motion will experience a proportional slowing of its rate of time, and that the arm of the experiment does not contract.
Just as one may consider that a length of wave is time related and that a wavelength only appears longer or shorter in distance because of the time it took to travel.
I don't see that I am doing my theory any disservice at-all here Colin!
Are you completely sure that you are not doing disservice to current theory with your analysis though?
*
I am discussing matters on the basis that both Alan and yourself are in understanding that there is a correlation between the gravity potential differences and the addition of relativistic mass in relation to blue shift, and red shift in light. The equations for each are different but there is direct correlation... Which makes what I've said factually correct as a synopsis, and I'm certainly not planning on writing a book every time I wish to speak about current physics, ok?
*
No there is no further need for Alan to put relativistic mass into context because he has already done so here:
Ignore sound - wholly different stuff, and its speed is not constant.
And Doppler is not the same thing as gravitational redshift.
The wavelength of light is given by L = hc/e where h is a constant, c is the speed of light (also a constant) and e is the kinetic energy of a photon.
In moving from a low to a high gravitational potential the photon loses kinetic energy as it gains potential energy, so e decreases and L increases.
People are often confused by gravitational potential, which is zero in "deep space" and negative close to a massive object (an "attractor"). V = -GM/r where G is a constant, M is the mass of the attractor, and r the distance from the attractor.
Now consider Doppler shift. If I send out a light pulse every second, you will receive a pulse every second if I'm not moving. If I move away from you, and the speed of light is constant, the pulses will arrive at slightly longer intervals because each pulse has further to travel. So the perceived frequency of a receding source is lower, and of an approaching source is higher, than the frequency received when it is stationary.
Wavelength L = c/frequency, so L increases for a receding source and vice versa.
The Pound-Rebka experiment was a neat proof of all this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment
So here...
Quote:
"The wavelength of light is given by L = hc/e where h is a constant, c is the speed of light (also a constant) and e is the kinetic energy of a photon.
In moving from a low to a high gravitational potential the photon loses kinetic energy as it gains potential energy, so e decreases and L increases."
Unquote:
...we can see that Alan has spelled out the correlation between relativistic mass and gravity potential...
Ask yourself, what is the cause of potential energy?
-
A new term has been promulgated in Physics World this week: "trumpoid". It is a statement that has absolutely no basis in fact, but supports the speaker's argument by casting aspersions on the integrity of others. The test of a trumpoid is that, when challenged, the source says "I didn't mean that" or "so what if it isn't true?"
At no point did I mention the relativistic mass of a photon, because it is wholly irrelevant to the mechanism and quantity of redshift.
The value of relativistic mass is an effect, not a cause, of redshift.
-
But it was in fact I who mentioned relativistic mass, and relativistic mass is clearly not wholly irrelevant to the current physics logic of how light moves across space, which is what I said I understood, and you said I didn't.
At no juncture have I said that relativistic mass causes redshift. I said that I understood the current physics logic of how light travels across space.
The relevant point is that gravity potential and relativistic mass have a direct correlation.
So what exactly are you saying? That I do understand, or that I don't? Because I'm not sure quite where you are coming from with this Trumpoid business, but I do recognise the word obtuse, and you are currently fitting this description...
You cannot seriously think that a cyclic universe can be described solely via the gravitational shift equation, nor legitimately purport the impression that current physics describes the logic of how light travels through space solely via the gravitational shift equation...
-
Trumpoid:
...we can see that Alan has spelled out the correlation between relativistic mass and gravity potential...
But it was in fact I who mentioned relativistic mass,
Light propagates according to the Maxwell equations, which make no mention of M, G, m or g. If Maxwell doesn't predict a cyclic universe, so what? It's arguable that Newton does.
If there is a correlation between -GM/r (the property of a massive attractor) and E/c^2 (the property of a massless photon) perhaps you would be good enough to demonstrate it, instead of trumping it as a fact.
-
Trumpoid:
...we can see that Alan has spelled out the correlation between relativistic mass and gravity potential...
But it was in fact I who mentioned relativistic mass,
Light propagates according to the Maxwell equations, which make no mention of M, G, m or g. If Maxwell doesn't predict a cyclic universe, so what? It's arguable that Newton does.
If there is a correlation between -GM/r (the property of a massive attractor) and E/c^2 (the property of a massless photon) perhaps you would be good enough to demonstrate it, instead of trumping it as a fact.
Since energy is the source of gravity and it is thought that light may have a gravitational field we can substitute -GE/c^2r. However this still has nothing to do with the frequency shift of light.
-
Are you completely sure that you are not doing disservice to current theory with your analysis though?
Completly sure.
If you care to explain why that would be I am willing to consider it.
If you look at a valid thought experiment you will see that it is understandable and reflects what is happening eg the gravity/acceleration equivalence.
It may be that you can explain your experimaent in a way that does make it valid, but at the moment J&J can easily work out what is really happening. Perhaps there is additional explanation in your mind that isn't coming across.
-
Colin - it really is not part of the remit of the thought experiment that J&J should not be able to work out that the time period they are travelling in has been extended.
It is I who have chosen to make J&J view this effect as a length dilation...
(although J&J would have a hard time differentiating between whether or not the time period had been a percentage that is longer or shorter because if J&J think in terms of the rate of time having increased for the car, rather than having decreased for the lane***both will produce the same result!***)
In choosing to make J&J view this effect as a length dilation, I am merely following suit from the LIGO, Michelson Morley, and light wave considerations, because in all 3 instances here the view is that length contraction or dilation is taking place.
The point of part 1 of the experiment was to 'encourage' the reader to think in terms of the time period being extended, rather than the distance being stretched... and given your reaction, part 1 of my thought experiment has been an astounding success! You are now thinking in terms of time periods being extended or decreased, instead of the distance or lengths being stretched, or contracted.
Please now do as I suggest and apply this 'time period' thinking to:
LIGO, (the gravity wave causes an increase in time, the path of the light is changed)
Michelson Morley (the inline to motion light experiencing a slowing of its own time, the path of the light is changed.
Light waves (the change in length being a change in time period caused by travelling through changes in rates of time, or caused by the rate of time of the emitting source)
If you have done as I suggest you are now thinking under the remit of my model, whereas under the remit of current physics it is thought:
LIGO - that the gravity wave causes a slower time period that does not match up to the degree of diffraction observed, and the other portion of the diffraction of the light is attributed to the tubes contracting.
Michelson Morley - that under the remit of the constant speed of light that the arm that is inline motion has contracted.
Light waves - that the length, ie: distance of a wavelength contracts or dilates.
We can now go back and look at the mechanics of part 1 of the thought experiment if you are at-all unclear, or if you are all good and understand these changes I have made from current model, and that these changes are the remit of my model, we can move on.
-
.. given your reaction, part 1 of my thought experiment has been an astounding success! You are now thinking in terms of time periods being extended or decreased, instead of the distance or lengths being stretched, or contracted.
Not so, this has always been part of my thinking because the 2 are inseparable. If you look at my simplified examples in the other threads you will see this.
There is little point looking at just one or the other, but what is important is to identify points of simultaneity.
I'm not going to comment on LIGO because there is more going on there than the simplified press releases.
'time period' thinking:
Light waves (the change in length being a change in time period caused by travelling through changes in rates of time, or caused by the rate of time of the emitting source)
These words are similar to ones I would use to describe current theory except I would use the words “the measured change in length being caused by the difference between the 'rate of time' of the locations of the emitting source and detector.”
under the remit of current physics:
Michelson Morley - that under the remit of the constant speed of light that the arm that is inline motion has contracted.
Also a change of time, both effects have been observed. As I said you can't separate them.
Light waves - under the remit of current physics:
that the length, ie: distance of a wavelength contracts or dilates.
Don't understand this reference. The only way a wavelength can change is if there is a change in the distance between wave peaks.
We can now go back and look at the mechanics of part 1 of the thought experiment ...
I really don't think it is going to do any good, you and I are clearly not viewing this in the same way.
I would prefer to set up a description, as I did earlier, of how time and distance actually change together.
Best you carry on and maybe your ideas will become clearer.
-
Since energy is the source of gravity
Now that's news to me. Can you elaborate or provide a reference?
-
.. given your reaction, part 1 of my thought experiment has been an astounding success! You are now thinking in terms of time periods being extended or decreased, instead of the distance or lengths being stretched, or contracted.
Not so, this has always been part of my thinking because the 2 are inseparable. If you look at my simplified examples in the other threads you will see this.
There is little point looking at just one or the other, but what is important is to identify points of simultaneity.
I'm not going to comment on LIGO because there is more going on there than the simplified press releases.
'time period' thinking:
Light waves (the change in length being a change in time period caused by travelling through changes in rates of time, or caused by the rate of time of the emitting source)
These words are similar to ones I would use to describe current theory except I would use the words “the measured change in length being caused by the difference between the 'rate of time' of the locations of the emitting source and detector.”
under the remit of current physics:
Michelson Morley - that under the remit of the constant speed of light that the arm that is inline motion has contracted.
Also a change of time, both effects have been observed. As I said you can't separate them.
Light waves - under the remit of current physics:
that the length, ie: distance of a wavelength contracts or dilates.
Don't understand this reference. The only way a wavelength can change is if there is a change in the distance between wave peaks.
We can now go back and look at the mechanics of part 1 of the thought experiment ...
I really don't think it is going to do any good, you and I are clearly not viewing this in the same way.
I would prefer to set up a description, as I did earlier, of how time and distance actually change together.
Best you carry on and maybe your ideas will become clearer.
Look Colin. How many times do I have to say:
"I am adding a contra directional gravitational time dilation to the universe."
So - very first step:
Do you understand the implications of adding a contra directional gravitational time dilation to the universe? ie: can you visualise what the results of adding this phenomenon will be?
-
Trumpoid:
...we can see that Alan has spelled out the correlation between relativistic mass and gravity potential...
But it was in fact I who mentioned relativistic mass,
Light propagates according to the Maxwell equations, which make no mention of M, G, m or g. If Maxwell doesn't predict a cyclic universe, so what? It's arguable that Newton does.
If there is a correlation between -GM/r (the property of a massive attractor) and E/c^2 (the property of a massless photon) perhaps you would be good enough to demonstrate it, instead of trumping it as a fact.
Since energy is the source of gravity and it is thought that light may have a gravitational field we can substitute -GE/c^2r. However this still has nothing to do with the frequency shift of light.
Unless the g of M causes a contra directional time dilation that causes light to be stretched or contracted over variable rates of time in the open space surrounding M - and it is the energy of the light being stretched or compacted, over or into the variable times of the reference frames of differing gravity potential surrounding M that changes the frequency.
Gravity is causing time dilation
Time dilation is causing frequency change.
There is no gravity without mass, and mass comes inherent with energy, so I agree that there is a direct correlation between gravity and energy.
Alan - that's no doubt why the link I posted earlier this thread is titled "why Maxwell could not describe gravity"...and goes on to quote the very interesting quote from Maxwell that suggested a contra directional stress to account for the force of gravity, although he could not imagine what might cause such a stress" that I quoted earlier this thread. My model is giving cause with this contra directional time dilation.
Interesting that you say Newton predicts a cyclic universe. Can you expand on that?
And... I am trumping nothing as fact! I am describing my model of a cyclic universe that may or may not have merit.
-
Since energy is the source of gravity
Now that's news to me. Can you elaborate or provide a reference?
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-same-object-weigh-more-when-it-is-hot-than-when-it-is-cold (https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-same-object-weigh-more-when-it-is-hot-than-when-it-is-cold)
But then it is stretching things a bit.
-
Look Colin. How many times do I have to say:
"I am adding a contra directional gravitational time dilation to the universe."
Just once, heard you the first time.
Do you understand the implications of adding a contra directional gravitational time dilation to the universe? ie: can you visualise what the results of adding this phenomenon will be?
Yup, but none of that changes the comments I made.
-
The implications of adding a contra directional gravitational time dilation (as I have also mentioned before), result in distance and length being constant in the face of this variable time - so your comments on how you want me to describe distance and length contraction/dilation as inseparable from time contraction/dilation are somewhat contradictory to my analysis.
Yes, a change in wavelength incorporates a changes between peaks, but the given explanation for this change between peaks does not HAVE to be distance related. It is equally possible for this change between wave peaks to be TIME PERIOD related. ie: it takes a longer or shorter period of time to complete the same distance.
-
...your comments on how you want me to describe distance and length contraction/dilation as inseparable from time contraction/dilation .....
I'm not saying I want you to do that, just commenting on your comparison between your theory and current.
-
Well Colin - in that I am describing a thought experiment that is asking you to try and think about things differently to current physics, I think it pertinent that if you wish to understand what it is that I am describing, you 'temporarily' let go of how you currently think about physics while you consider the changes.
I don't understand what your problem is with the structure of part 1 of the thought experiment. I am not making a comparison here between current theory and my model. I am simply describing how holding the duration of 1 length of second constant to measure a different length of second will result in a different distance being travelled...can you please explain why this poses a problem to you?
-
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-same-object-weigh-more-when-it-is-hot-than-when-it-is-cold (https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-same-object-weigh-more-when-it-is-hot-than-when-it-is-cold)
But then it is stretching things a bit.
More than a stretch, almost a trump. Adding kinetic energy increases mass, but as far as we know it is mass that causes gravity. At absolute zero, massive objects still attract each other, so it is not true to say that energy causes gravity.
-
No - but you could say that mass causes gravity, gravity causes time dilation (contra directional), time dilation (contra directional) causes attraction, and attraction causes energy.
(Btw, an absolute 0 gravity field doesn't exist 'inside' my model of a contracting universe... and...are you not interested in commenting on the Maxwell quote mentioning a contra directional stress that he cannot hither (or some other oldy world speak) imagine a physical cause for... Alan???)
-
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-same-object-weigh-more-when-it-is-hot-than-when-it-is-cold (https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-same-object-weigh-more-when-it-is-hot-than-when-it-is-cold)
But then it is stretching things a bit.
More than a stretch, almost a trump. Adding kinetic energy increases mass, but as far as we know it is mass that causes gravity. At absolute zero, massive objects still attract each other, so it is not true to say that energy causes gravity.
So how much mass would an object exhibit at absolute zero? Would the gravitational potential still be the same at its surface for instance?
-
I recommend the reference you quoted. But to save you the effort of actually reading it, the additional relativistic mass at any achieveable temperature is buggerall compared with the mass of an object at absolute zero. There is no evidence for stuff floating away as it cools, so I think we can safely assume that F = GMm/r^2 at any temperature, where m = m(0) + Tdm/dT is just a teeensy weensy bit variable.
-
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-same-object-weigh-more-when-it-is-hot-than-when-it-is-cold (https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-same-object-weigh-more-when-it-is-hot-than-when-it-is-cold)
But then it is stretching things a bit.
More than a stretch, almost a trump. Adding kinetic energy increases mass, but as far as we know it is mass that causes gravity. At absolute zero, massive objects still attract each other, so it is not true to say that energy causes gravity.
At absolute zero, how do you know there is no energy left in the container. At low temperatures there is no heat transfer but it doesn't mean there is no energy left. How about the nucleus bond ?
Can you separate mass from energy ? I think not.
To make absolute zero you need to remove everything from the container.
Gravity must be a field just like other fields that propagate at constant speed and, because the propagation follows the same rules. It creates the illusion of gravitational force between objects. It only has different orientation. If it was a property of spacetime it would've need an additional condition for speed limit. The spacetime must be in a such a way, a free falling object goes asymptotically to c. That is a new condition.
-
Yes, a change in wavelength incorporates a changes between peaks, but the given explanation for this change between peaks does not HAVE to be distance related. It is equally possible for this change between wave peaks to be TIME PERIOD related. ie: it takes a longer or shorter period of time to complete the same distance.
But since c = fL and c is constant, if you change f you will change L by the exact reciprocal.
-
Yes, a change in wavelength incorporates a changes between peaks, but the given explanation for this change between peaks does not HAVE to be distance related. It is equally possible for this change between wave peaks to be TIME PERIOD related. ie: it takes a longer or shorter period of time to complete the same distance.
But since c = fL and c is constant, if you change f you will change L by the exact reciprocal.
Yup - and then if you subsequently say that L/f = variable second and state c = 299 792 458 metres per variable second, then L will remain constant.
The speed of light in the reference frame where L/f = variable second remains constant... and the speed of light will remain constant in any, and every reference frame universally under this remit.
-
I am simply describing how holding the duration of 1 length of second constant to measure a different length of second will result in a different distance being travelled...can you please explain why this poses a problem to you?
If that is what you were doing, then no problem. The problem is with the description of what you are doing and the conclusions reached.
For example:
then if you subsequently say that L/f = variable second
This is not a variable second, but it is one reason why your theory won't be taken seriously.
It may be the problem lies in your description of the experiment, so to check that there is no misunderstanding:
In all lanes the car runs at 10m/s. It makes a mark every metre. There is start/stop light controlled by you.
In Lane 1 you use a stopwatch and stop the car after 10s.
In Lane 2 you use a stopwatch and stop the car after 11s
J&J have a tape measure and can compare lanes 1 and 2 to see length of metre is same.
OK so far?
In your description of the experiment you say "we extend the length of a second by 10% via the timing between the green start light and red stoplight, and ask Janet and John to drive for 100 metres up lane 2 of the track.".
How do they drive 100m up the lane? Logic would say by driving alongside Lane 1 until they come to the 100th mark. But you control how far they have gone, so they have to rely on other information - 110 marks 1m apart = 110 metres, and at 10m/s they will travel for 11s. So there should be no confusion on their part.
However, let's say that they believe you that they have really driven 100m then clearly their ruler must be wrong. But 100m and 110 marks, so each mark is now contracted (not expanded) to 0.909m.
You now cause even more confusion by saying "Clearly if the car was reset to make marks at 10 per elongated second, there would only be 100 marks, and the spaces between each marker would measure 1 metre".
Well, 10 per elongated second would mean 10 marks every 1.1s, and at a speed of 10m/s the marks would be 1.1m apart.
So I hope you can see why I have problems with your experiment, it has nothing to do with thinking in variable seconds or inverted time zones, not about thinking outside current physics, but everything to do with calculation.
When you started this thread I had hoped you would genuinely follow up on the consequences of considering variable second, but this is not it.
-
Yup - and then if you subsequently say that L/f = variable second and state c = 299 792 458 metres per variable second, then L will remain constant.
Let me be really, really boring for a moment and introduce dimensional analysis.
Wavelength L divided by frequency f has dimensions of length x time, not time, and therefre cannot be any sort of second, let alone a variable second.
-
Colin - if the car makes 100 marks in lane 1, then in lane 2 if we do not reset the second that the car makes marks at, then the car will make 110 marks with the extended duration between start and stop light in lane 2. If we reset the second that the car in lane 2 makes marks at to 1.1 seconds, relative to to lane 1, as per the 10% extended duration between start and stop light in lane 2 - then the car will make 100 marks and the distance between the marks will be 1 metre.
The distance the car travels in lane 2 will then be the same as it was in lane 1, because the car is travelling at constant speed per elongated second.
In lane 1 the frequency per second is 10 metres per second.
In lane 2 the frequency per second is 9 metres per lane 1 second, or it can be 10 metres per lane 2 second.
I apologise if my thought experiment is not up to scratch, but the logic is sound!
Alan - As above... Perhaps my maths were not concise in describing the above, but using 1 dimension of time in order to calculated another dimension of time does not seem out of the realms of possibility in my mind.
-
Alan, actually you are right. What I'm describing isn't a variable second. What I'm describing is a light wave moving at constant speed retaining a constant distance between wave peaks when travelling through variable time.... And that when current physics describes the length of a wavelength being inversely proportional to the energy of the light wave, all I am doing is saying that the rate of time that the light wave is travelling through, this reference frames length of second, (relative to a reference frame where light will have a different frequency), will be inversely proportional to the lights energy.
This means that the peaks between waves of all frequency of light travelling through reference frames of changing rates of time will be equally distanced, and that it is the change in length of second that extends or contracts a light wave.
(The logic for a light emitting source is symmetrical to this notion and I have tried to talk about this concept here: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68849.0
...)
These changes in the rate of time that I am describing are the effects of the phenomenon of the contra directional gravitational time dilation that my model adds to the universe. And the way light travels through the gravity field of open space surrounding M is indicative of this contra directional gravitational time dilations value at height from M.
(this negates the need for relativistic mass for light, and gives the acceleration of gravity a cause)
If this can be understood then I can go on to discuss how GR gravitational time dilation fits into this picture, and how the remit of this picture can hold distance or length constant within SR.
-
If the clocks rates are affected by speed instead of thinking time itsels is affecting it can also mean the clock only is affected buy the time not. Thus the clock doesn't measure time anymore but measures relative speed. The clock becomes a speedometer in the absolute space. Thus the 1/ frequency is proportional the speed. 1/abs f is measured in 1/abs s and is proportional to normal m/s. L/absolute f is in m/m * s = s (which is not the absolute second but the one measured by normal clocks. But L/f is m*s.
-
I'm really sorry Nilak but I just can't visualise those mathematical symbols. If I could do the maths I would have calculated my model and either thrown it in bin in disgust (chuckle), or jubilantly submitted it for peer review. My purpose here on the forum is to ask for help with the maths.
What I can say from reading what you have written is that my post on the other thread describing a concept of an absolute time being a universal 'now' has perhaps passed you by. I do not see the possibility of an absolute second, only variable seconds of which the second that we know as a standard second is only distinguishable from any other as being considerably useful as a standard with which to measure any other length of second against.
In this thread concerning part 1 of what Colin reckons isn't a very well thought out thought experiment, the speed is held constant and we are just considering that the duration that this constant speed is travelling for has been extended by 10%, but that the car is still marking out 10 metres per second, as per the duration of a second in the lane 1 scenario, and so marks out 110 metres. And how, if we reset the car to make 10 marks per second that is lengthened by 10%, that the car would then only make 100 marks at 10 marks per longer second exactly 1 metre apart.
-
In this thread concerning part 1 of what Colin reckons isn't a very well thought out thought experiment
What I said was that it was unclear and probably in the description.
This makes it clearer:
Colin - if the car makes 100 marks in lane 1, then in lane 2 if we do not reset the second that the car makes marks at, then the car will make 110 marks with the extended duration between start and stop light in lane 2. If we reset the second that the car in lane 2 makes marks at to 1.1 seconds, relative to to lane 1, as per the 10% extended duration between start and stop light in lane 2 - then the car will make 100 marks and the distance between the marks will be 1 metre.
The distance the car travels in lane 2 will then be the same as it was in lane 1, because the car is travelling at constant speed per elongated second.
In lane 1 the frequency per second is 10 metres per second.
In lane 2 the frequency per second is 9 metres per lane 1 second, or it can be 10 metres per lane 2 second.
Let's start with some clarification.
“ frequency per second is 10 metres per second”
If you use incorrect terminology people will judge you and your theory accordingly and dismiss both.
I'm sure Alan has already said this, but frequency already incorporates /s so frequency/s would be used to describe a rate of change of frequency.
To describe frequency you need a plain number or count eg marks/s rather than a distance eg metres. This will also help to avoid some confusion in your experiment.
For example:
“In lane 1 the frequency per second is 10 metres per second.” I'll restate this as f=10 marks/s
OK, I agree this.
“In lane 2 the frequency per second is 9 metres per lane 1 second, or it can be 10 metres per lane 2 second.”
How do you get this?
The journey in lane 2 took 11 lane 1 seconds and made 110 marks so f=10 marks/s (lane 1 seconds)
Also, “If we reset the second that the car in lane 2 makes marks at to 1.1 seconds, relative to to lane 1, as per the 10% extended duration between start and stop light in lane 2 - then the car will make 100 marks and the distance between the marks will be 1 metre.”
Agreed, as long as we all understand that they are 1.1 lane 1 metres.
-
Colin - by your stating the length of the metre in lane 2 as being a lane 2 metre, I take this to mean that you are still thinking that a metre in lane 2 will be longer than a metre in lane 1...
... In which case, no! You are missing the fact that in resetting the car in lane 2 to make a mark every metre at constant speed per longer second, (ie: the same duration longer (per second) as has been added to the duration between stop and start light in lane 2), ...this being 10% longer - then both the car and the lane are set to the remit of the longer second, and the car will make a mark every metre as per a metre in lane 1.
Take the car in lane 2 that has been reset to make a mark every metre at constant speed per the duration of a lane 2 second, and when lane 2 car travels in lane 1 where the duration of the time between stop and start light is 10% less than lane 2, the lane 2 car will only mark out 90 metres within the duration of 10 lane 1 seconds.
...Just to further solidify what I am trying to convey:
If we get a third car for lane 3, and set this car to make a mark every metre at constant speed per second that is 20% longer than a lane 1 second, the car in lane 3 will be travelling at constant speed per second that is matching the duration between stop and start light in lane 3 which is also 20% longer than a lane 1 second. The lane 3 car will make 100 marks in that duration of time between stop and start light, but the distance between the marks will still be a metre as measured in lane 1 and lane 2.
Take the lane 3 car and run it in lane 1. It will make 80 marks in the duration of time between stop and start light in lane 1.
Take the lane 1 car that is set to make marks as per a lane 1 second and run it in lane 3. The lane 1 car travelling within the duration between stop and start light in lane 3 as per a lane 3 second will make 120 marks.
It is important that the difference between a time experienced by the car, and a time experienced by the lane be understood before I can proceed.
-
…..... in resetting the car in lane 2 to make a mark every metre at constant speed per longer second, (ie: the same duration longer (per second) as has been added to the duration between stop and start light in lane 2), ...this being 10% longer - then both the car and the lane are set to the remit of the longer second, and the car will make a mark every metre as per a metre in lane 1.
OK, I can see what you have done. But you take my point about being very specific in your descriptions, or as Alan put it:
No, there will be 90 marks. Or maybe not. You have given inexplicit instructions.
So to check understanding:
Yes f in lane 2, measured in lane 1 will be 0.909 marks/s.
Again to check understanding:
If we consider lanes 1 & 2 to be at different GPs with lane 2 in the stronger gravity, ie slower time, then we can see that a frequency generated in lane 2 will be seen as redshifted in lane1.
What is different from current physics however, is that lane 1 will measure the car in lane 2 as travelling slower at 9.09m/s. This is because you have fixed the wavelength of lane 2 to be the same as in lane 1, whereas current physics allows this to change and so gives constant speed measurements.
EDIT to correct slip of keyboard
-
I'm really sorry Nilak but I just can't visualise those mathematical symbols.
That is because the what I wrote there is a total mess and it was done in a hurry.
Abs stands for absolute.
The math can be done. The idea is that units in absolute space vs. in a reference frame don't correspond directly like between reference frames because in absolute frame regular clock's don't measure absolute time and therefore cannot be measured in absolute seconds.
Although you talk about a variable second I think you need the absolute second to describe it.
-
Colin - you are getting ahead of the discussion by adding in GP to the scenario, but when I do add in GP, contrarily to your comment regarding, the gravity potential will be lower for lane 1 than lane 2 and lower for lane 2 than lane 3.
Also I cannot understand where you get this 0.909 figure from. If something is a figure of 100 and you take away 10%, it will be 90 surely?
And, yes, you are correct that current physics holds a standard second as a constant against frequency.
So - what you might deduce from my last post is that when taking a lane 2 car making marks at the frequency of a lane 2 second (this being 10% longer than a lane 1 second) and then running this lane 2 car in lane 1, that within 10 lane 1 seconds the lane 2 car will make 90 marks... and the space between these marks that the lane 2 car has marked in lane 1 will measure 1.1 metres.
...and the lane 3 car that is set to make marks at the frequency of a lane 3 second (this being 20% longer than a lane 1 second) running in lane 1, will make 80 marks within the duration of 10 lane 1 seconds...and the space between these marks that the lane 3 car marks out in lane 1 will measure 1.2 metres.
(As I have described above, the lane is a standard second, and the cars making marks to the tune of variable time periods are the frequency change)
Please note that these considerations so far have been just to illustrate the addition of a contra directional time dilation. (It may be noted at this juncture that my model states light as being unaffected by gravity potential)
Now I will add the gravity potential considerations:
To reiterate, the car in lane 1 is set to make 10 marks per second. The duration of time between start and stop light is 10 seconds.
We are now resetting the lane 2 car to make marks per a second that is 10% shorter than the lane 1 second. (Please note that the lane 2 duration between stop and start light is still set at 10% longer than lane 1)
... We set the lane 3 car to make marks per a second that is 20% shorter than a lane 1 second. (Please note that the lane 3 duration between stop and start light is still set at 20% longer than lane 1.)
Looking at this reset lane 2 car making marks in lane 2 at a 10% faster rate than the lane 1 car, in the 10% slower than lane 1 duration of time between start and stop light - how many marks will the car make?
(please ignore SR for the mo, we'll get to that)
Nilak - you cannot have an absolute second in a universe of variable seconds, but you can make the standard second a second with which to hold every other length of second against. As physics maths is doing this in any case, it's just a case of realising where physics is doing this and then further calculating.
Also it is important to recognise of you are going to use an absolute now or not as a concept. Without it, the universe is a mess of different reference frames in various state of present, past, and future, and the possibility of an absolute reference frame is lost.
-
Also I cannot understand where you get this 0.909 figure from. If something is a figure of 100 and you take away 10%, it will be 90 surely?
I think you must have read my post before you posted and before I had amended it. I was rushing out of the house and didn't proof read!
Yes, it is 9.09m/s.
Don't have much time at the moment but will have a read and work through what you have put. Might be a few days.
However, I think we are getting closer to what you are trying to say.
-
Colin - Just to say that it is of paramount importance that the 'speed' is always viewed as being constant... and sure, see you in few days... :)
-
see you in few days... :)
Not back yet. Can I check a few details:
Lane 2 car was first run in Lane 2 with no special settings - I'll call this car2a.
The Lane 2 car when 1st reset (I'll call this car2b) makes marks at the same metre distance as in Lane 1. It runs for 10 Lane 2 seconds and makes 100 marks.
When Lane 2 car is resent for GP (car2c) do you again keep the same metre as Lane 1? Do you also run it for 10 Lane 2 seconds?
-
Ah, ok Colin, again it is of paramount importance that you also view the metre as being a constant.
Constant speed, constant distance. The point being to recognise that a metre is only being affected in length when we use 1 length of second to measure another, such as in instances 1 and 3.
The lane 1 car, running at a lane 1 second (this being the duration in lane 1 between start and stop light) was run in lane 1 where the lane 1 car makes 10 marks per lane 1 second. Here the defining factor is that the duration between the start and stop light for the lane 1 car matches 10 seconds as per how the car is set to make marks. Both the lane and the car are measuring as per an equal duration of a second.
In the 1st instance I ran the lane 1 car in lane 1 and the car made 100 marks 1 metre apart.
Then I ran the lane 1 car in lane 2 where the duration between start and stop light is 10% longer than in lane 1. The lane 1 car makes 110 marks 1 metre apart in lane 2.
Then I ran the lane 1 car in lane 3 where the duration between start and stop light is 20% longer than in lane 1. The lane 1 car makes 120 marks 1 metre apart in lane 3.
In the 2nd instance I introduced the lane 2 car which is set to make marks at 10 marks per second that is 10% longer than a lane 1 second.
When I run this lane 2 car in lane 2, the lane 2 car will make 100 marks in the duration of time between start and stop light in lane 2, and the marks will be 1 metre apart.
Introducing the lane 3 car that is set to make marks at 10 marks per second that is 20% longer than a lane 1 second, this lane 3 car will make 100 marks between start and stop light in lane 3, and the marks will be 1 metre apart.
In the 3rd instance, I then ran the lane 2 car in lane 1 where the lane 2 car makes 90 marks in the duration between start and stop light in lane 1.
I then ran the lane 3 car in lane 1 where the lane 3 car makes 80 marks in the duration between start and stop light in lane 1.
Now I add the gravity potential. Lane 2 car is reset to make 10 marks per second that is 10% shorter than lane 1... But remember that the duration between start and stop light in lane 2 is 10% longer than in lane 1. ...And the question is: how many marks does this reset lane 2 car now make in lane 2?
-
Ok, well as far as I am concerned the answer is:
100 marks that are 1 metre apart...
...and if we reset the lane 3 car to make marks at 10 marks per a second that is 20% shorter than a lane 1 second, then within the duration of time between start and stop light in lane 3 that is 20% longer than in lane 1, the lane 3 car will also make 100 marks that are 1 metre apart.
(So we can see that 1 direction of time dilation cancels the effects of the other for gravity potential affected objects)
Now let's add SR:
We will now give the constant speed of the cars the value of 0.866c. According to SR the cars will be experiencing a 50% slowing of time and a 50% length contraction.
First we need to look at lane 1. The car will experience a 50% slowing of its time. In lane 1 the car is set to make 10 marks per second at the same rate of second as the duration of 10 seconds between start and stop light in lane 1... So in the duration of time between start and stop light in lane 1, the lane 1 car experiencing a 50% slowing of its time will make 50 marks. Each mark will be 2 metres apart. Should we choose to view these 2 metre distance marks as having the value of 1 original metre, we might be a bit worried that the slowing of the cars time has slowed the speed of the car by 50%, but we can make a mental note at this juncture that when considering a 50% length contraction, the length contracted car will make 100 marks, and that these marks will be 1 metre apart. If we were at-all worried that a slowing of the cars time would slow the cars speed, then we can observe that the length contracted car is maintaining the 0.866c despite the slowing of its time.
However, when moving the scenario into lane 2 we now have to consider what length of second we are holding relative to the speed of light...
The lane 2 car is set to make 10 marks per a second that is 10% shorter than a lane 1 second, and the duration between start and stop light is 10% longer in lane 2 than a lane 1 second.
My model states light as unaffected by gravity potential so the speed of light in lane 2 is calculated as 299 792 458 metres per second that is 10% longer than in lane 1... So... 0.866c then doesn't have the same value in lane 2 as it had in lane 1...
...But what we are going to do here is keep the constant speed of the lane 2 and lane 3 cars, (this being 0.866c), relative to the lane 1 second...
The lane 2 car is now travelling at 0.866c relative to a lane 1 second, in a lane 2 second where this speed is now 0.9526c (and I'm sorry everyone, 'cos this is where I lose touch with the numbers) ... but the lane 2 car will be experiencing a greater degree of a slowing of its time, for arguments sake I'll say 55% and a greater degree of length contraction, again I'll say 55%, relative to the 50% observed of the lane 1 car...
...But...the lane 2 car itself is also experiencing a 10% shorter second relative to the lane 1 car, and the duration between stop and start light is 10% longer in lane 2 than lane 1...
So we take the 55% slowing of time the lane 2 car experiences and subtract the gravity potential 10% shorter second that the car is also experiencing, leaving a remainder of a 45% slowing of the cars time. The car is further slowed by 10% by the duration between stop and start light in lane 2, so we can add 10% back on for a total of 55% slowing of time. The car will make 45 marks that are 2.222 metres apart. (??? Scratches head) Again, if we are concerned that the car has been reduced in speed by the slowing of it's time, we can see that the expected length contraction of 55% will cause the lane 2 car to make 100 marks 1 metre apart...
So under this remit, the lane 2 car didn't travel any further than the lane 1 car, but it did take them 5% more time to get there relative to lane 1's journey time.
Make the calculation for lane 3 and the lane 3 car will also not travel any further than the lane 2, or lane 1 car, but the lane 3 car will take 10% longer to get there relative to the lane 1's journey time.
(This is how GR and SR work within the picture of the added contra directional gravitational time dilation and my model of a cyclic universe)
If you can get your heads around that, (that being my shabby mathematical representation) ...then:
If we now decide to hold the speed 0.866c relative to the lane 2 second, (this being the rate of the duration of time between start and stop light in lane 2) that is 10% longer than the lane 1 second, we will have to physically reduce the lane 2 cars 'speed' by 10%. By calculation via a lane 1 second, the lane 2 car is now travelling at 0.7794c. Because the lane 2 car is now travelling at 0.866c as per a lane 2 second, the lane 2 car will now travel the distance in the same amount of time as the lane 1 car does.
Reduce the speed for the lane 3 car by 20% relative to the lane 1 second, thereby holding the speed of 0.866c relative to a lane 3 second, and the lane 3 car will travel the distance in the same amount of time as the lane 1, and lane 2 cars.
(This is the mechanics of how my model of the universe warps time to travel across space quicker)
Edit - Please let me rephrase:
This is how the mechanics of the universe, as per my model, can be utilised by humans to travel across space faster.
(Please note that in a non expanding, slowly contracting universe, masses, in particular galaxies, are not as far apart as current physics denotes)
-
Have I been dismissed?
-
I think you have just bludgeoned everyone into silent admiration of your verbal knitting.
-
But do the maths work?
-
I've been off grid for a while, not a lot of time to spend on this but I'm back with some questions for clarification, but haven't got beyond 1st part.
But do the maths work?
Models like these don't prove a theory, but they do help to understand the thinking behind it.
If you can offer some experimental tests, which your theory predicts, which go against current theory then that would help your case.
However, to the model.
Two statements which I would like to understand more about:
...... it is of paramount importance that the 'speed' is always viewed as being constant...
when taking a lane 2 car making marks at the frequency of a lane 2 second (this being 10% longer than a lane 1 second) and then running this lane 2 car in lane 1, that within 10 lane 1 seconds the lane 2 car will make 90 marks... and the space between these marks that the lane 2 car has marked in lane 1 will measure 1.1 metres.
I agree that in part 1 with lanes 1&2, cars in their respective lanes will be measured by local time to be 10m/s. However, when those cars are measured from another Lane, or run in another lane, not their own, then the measured speed will differ. For example, when the Lane 2 car is run in Lane 1 it will run at 9.09m/s.
Also, my calculations show a different result to that in bold above. The Lane 1 marks made by the Lane 2 car will be 0.909m apart not 1.1m, so I am obviously misunderstanding your instructions.
Also, I see that in #111 you add "Now I add the gravity potential. Lane 2 car is reset to make 10 marks per second that is 10% shorter than lane 1... But remember that the duration between start and stop light in lane 2 is 10% longer than in lane 1. ...And the question is: how many marks does this reset lane 2 car now make in lane 2?"
And in #112 you say "there are 100 marks and they are 1m apart."
I don't get the same answer.
If I follow your instructions and instead of setting the car to make marks at 10% longer (but maintaining 1m spacing) then set the car to make marks at a second 10% shorter than Lane 1, then in this case I end up with the car making 122.1 marks in Lane 2.
However, because you talk about adding the GP, I assume you really mean to adjust the car which had +10% with an additional -10% thus bringing it close to the original scenario, however that gives 110 marks in Lane 2.
Again, what instructions are you working with?
Also, could you explain your comment "So we can see that 1 direction of time dilation cancels the effects of the other for gravity potential affected objects", because it sounds as though you are saying that there is no GP red/blue shift because your inverse dilation cancels it out! If so, I don't understand how your theory matches current observations.
Just an aside, I don't have time to go through the SR part, I'm more interested in the GP Section.
I think you have just bludgeoned everyone into silent admiration of your verbal knitting.
This is serious knitting and it does take some untangling.
-
I am aware that maths do not prove a theory. What I am seeking here is mathematical representation of the concepts that describe my model of a cyclic universe.
Again, the synopsis of my theory which is available on my personal details, outlines my models suggested experiment to prove or disprove itself.
To answer your questions:
Yes - in part 1 of the experiment the car was set to make 10 marks per second, and each mark is 1 metre apart. The second that the car makes 10 marks per is set as per the 10 second duration between start and stop light in lane 1.
(Here the lane 1 car is making marks at the same rate of a second being used for duration between start and stop light in lane 1)
In lane 2 the duration between start and stop light is 10% longer than lane 1, and in lane 3 it is 20% longer than lane 1 - so the car set to make 10 marks as per a lane 1 second will make 110 marks in lane 2's 10 second duration between start and stop light, and 120 marks in lane 3's 10 second duration between start and stop light. Each mark will be 1 metre apart.
(Here we can see that while the car itself is making marks at the rate of a lane 1 second, it is travelling within the duration of a second that is 10%, or 20% longer than the rate the car is making marks at. The car itself is experiencing a faster rate of second than the rate of second it is travelling through and travels further.
Please note: I have not added gravity potential here. All I am showing is that by using 1 length of second to measure a journey made at a constant speed in a reference frame inherent with a differing length of second, that distances may be compromised.)
To further illustrate:
When I introduce the lane 2 and lane 3 cars, we swap parameters and set the car in lane 2 to make 10 marks per second as per the rate of second used for the 10 second duration between start and stop light in lane 2, this being 10% longer than a lane 1 second. The lane 2 car travelling in the lane 2 duration between start and stop light will now make 100 marks that are 1 metre apart.
But the lane 2 car travelling in the duration of a lane 1 second will make 90 marks that are 1.1 metres apart... And the lane 3 car that makes 100 marks 1 metre apart in the lane 3 duration between start and stop light, will make 80 marks when travelling in lane 1 that are 1.2 metres apart.
(Here the car is experiencing a slower rate of second than the rate of time it is travelling through.)
Ok - what you are maybe missing is that in lane 1, the car and the lane (ie: the duration between start and stop light), are set at the same length of second. And when we make changes to the lengths of seconds in lane 2 and 3 for either the lane or the car, it is important that you, if you are to view the thought experiment under the suggested remit, recognise that we are, at this stage maintaining constant speed and inferring constant distance, so to avoid confusion could you please refer to m/s as metres per second, this being a speed, and marks per second as being the marks a car makes per variable second. It's important to distinguish the difference.
Ok, in adding gravity potential to lane 2 and setting the car to make marks as per a second that is 10% shorter than a lane 1 second, this will be a little bit like running a lane 1 car in lane 2, where the lane 1 car will make 110 marks 1 metre apart in lane 2... except for the fact that the car will be making marks at a 10% faster rate than a lane 1 car... so, (and yes you are right here), the car will make 120 marks 1 metre apart, but only if we use the 10% shorter second to measure the journey with.
But if I use the lane 2 second to measure the marks that the lane 2 car is making at 20% faster rate than the lane 2 second, then this would be synonymous to taking the lane 3 car that is set to run at 20% slower rate than a lane 1 second and running it in lane 1, where the car will make 80 marks at 1.2 metres apart for a total of 100 metres.
But if I measure the situation as per relative to a lane 1 second, lane 2 is running at a 10% longer second than lane 1, so the lane 2 second measuring the car making marks at a rate that is 10% faster, when held relative to a lane 1 second will record 90 marks at 1.1 metres for a total of 100 metres...
And the car running at a 10% shorter second, relative to a lane 1 second, marking lane 2 will make 110 marks at 0.9 metres for a total of 100 metres.
(This is what I refer to when I say that a gravitational time dilation that is causing a slower time, and a gravitational time dilation that is causing a faster time, if equally apportioned, will each cancel out the others time dilation related changes to the distance travelled. Granted, I should have added: and this becomes apparent when relating the actions of both these gravitational time dilation phenomenon back to a 'standardised' lane 1 second)
I am saying that in my model light is not affected by gravity potential. That light is only affected by the added contra directional gravitational time dilation. ie: that redshifts and blue shifts are caused by the contra directional gravitational time dilation of my model, and that the frequency of light travelling across space is stretched over, or compressed into time, not stretched over, or compressed into distance...
The gravity potential considerations are concerning objects with rest mass which is where GR and SR have their place in my model.
-
when I get chance I'll read through your last post and see what it changes.
-
Now here's a problem. You have defined the second as one tenth of the time between the start and stop light. But when the car starts moving, neither it nor the occupants know when the stop light is going to light because the second hasn't been defined until it does, so they don't know when to make marks on the road.
I think that's called a purl stitch in your knitting.
-
Since this is just a thought experiment, and as such does not strictly have to resemble an exact physical possibility - and as in this thought experiment it is the experimenters who are setting the cars to make marks at certain values and the lanes to have different durations of time, then all we are actually doing here Alan is examining what would happen under the remits that the thought experiment's experimenters denote.
The thought experiments experimenters have decided that a start and stop light on dashboard of the car is denoting a period of 10 seconds, of which the length of second used to denote this duration may vary.
The experimenters have also decided that the car will travel at constant speed without the necessity for acceleration or deceleration (impossible for a car) and that it is part of the mechanics of the car that the car itself will make marks as per the length of second that the experimenters denote.
We can indeed quite logically conclude that the experimenters, in deciding which length of second to use for both the duration of the lane 1 start and stop light, and the rate that the car is set to make marks at in lane 1, which are operating as per the same length of second in lane 1, would naturally have used the length of second that they themselves are experiencing in their reference frame.
What's the problem?
-
When I introduce the lane 2 and lane 3 cars, we swap parameters and set the car in lane 2 to make 10 marks per second as per the rate of second used for the 10 second duration between start and stop light in lane 2, this being 10% longer than a lane 1 second. The lane 2 car travelling in the lane 2 duration between start and stop light will now make 100 marks that are 1 metre apart.
But the lane 2 car travelling in the duration of a lane 1 second will make 90 marks that are 1.1 metres apart...
OK, I think I can now see what you are doing so let's go through this bit by bit so we can check my understanding.
I'm going to refer to Lane 1 seconds as s1 and Lane 2 seconds as s2.
To summarise my understanding:
Cars in Lane 1 are stopped after 10s1
Cars in Lane 2 are stopped after 10s2
The car in Lane 2 has to travel 100m, make 100 marks, all in 10s2.
Consider that 10s2=11s1 so car2 has to travel 100m in 11s1 and it can only do that by travelling at 9.09m/s1. At this speed, to make marks 1m apart it will have to make a mark every 0.11s1 (=every 0.1s2 ie 10 marks/s2), hence making 100marks.
If car 2 now moves into Lane 1 it will be timed to travel for 10s1, hence it will travel for 90.9m. However, it is still taking 0.11s1 between marks so it will still make them 1m apart and will make 90.9 of them.
So rather than the distance being expanded to 1.1m it will remain at 1m.
I am disappointed to say that the maths don't work.
-
Colin - I am disappointed that you have forgotten that the Lane 2 car is set to make marks at a 10% faster rate than a lane 1 second. I don't really see how the maths can be stated as not working without including this parameter.
Let me please check that you understand fully all the parameters.
Lane 1 itself and the lane 1 car are using a standard second. The rate of second in lane 1 is equal for both the lane and the car.
Lane 2 is using a second that is 10% longer than this standard second, but lane 2's car is using a second that is 10% shorter than this standard second.
I already described that if we use the shorter second to measure the scenario, that the car will make 120 marks that are 1 metre apart...
I already described that if we use the longer second to measure the scenario, that this will be synonymous to a lane 3 car in lane 1, (as in part 1 of thought experiment, where lane 3 car is making marks at 1.2 standard seconds), and the car will make 80 marks that are 1.2 metres apart...
...Now we are going to use the standard second to measure what both lane 2 itself and the lane 2 car are doing.
The lane 2 car is running at 0.9 of a lane 1 standard second, and lane 2 itself is running at 1.1 of a lane 1 standard second...
Lane 1 is observing the shorter rate of second moving through the longer rate of second.
Your maths are not representative of this description.
Also... your commentary regarding the maths you have represented somewhat confuses me, as it is indeed the remit of this thought experiment that all distances that are thought to be stretched or contracted, (under current physics), should remain physically constant in the face of this contra directional gravitational time dilation that my model adds to the universe... So, if a metre is calculated to be not stretched or contracted, then this means that the maths DO work.
-
Colin - I am disappointed that you have forgotten that the Lane 2 car is set to make marks at a 10% faster rate than a lane 1 second. I don't really see how the maths can be stated as not working without including this parameter.
Perhaps we are talking about different scenarios. If you look at the beginning of my last post, #121you will see that the one I quoted is this one:
When I introduce the lane 2 and lane 3 cars, we swap parameters and set the car in lane 2 to make 10 marks per second as per the rate of second used for the 10 second duration between start and stop light in lane 2, this being 10% longer than a lane 1 second. The lane 2 car travelling in the lane 2 duration between start and stop light will now make 100 marks that are 1 metre apart.
But the lane 2 car travelling in the duration of a lane 1 second will make 90 marks that are 1.1 metres apart...
I did take the 10% longer into account:
Consider that 10s2=11s1 .....
The reason I say the maths don't work is because the answer is 1m not stretched to 1.1m as you quote.
What you are quoting below looks like the next stage where you put in GP. I would like to resolve the one above first:
Let me please check that you understand fully all the parameters.
Lane 1 itself and the lane 1 car are using a standard second. The rate of second in lane 1 is equal for both the lane and the car.
Lane 2 is using a second that is 10% longer than this standard second, but lane 2's car is using a second that is 10% shorter than this standard second.
I already described that if we use the shorter second to measure the scenario, that the car will make 120 marks that are 1 metre apart...
I already described that if we use the longer second to measure the scenario, that this will be synonymous to a lane 3 car in lane 1, (as in part 1 of thought experiment, where lane 3 car is making marks at 1.2 standard seconds), and the car will make 80 marks that are 1.2 metres apart...
...Now we are going to use the standard second to measure what both lane 2 itself and the lane 2 car are doing.
The lane 2 car is running at 0.9 of a lane 1 standard second, and lane 2 itself is running at 1.1 of a lane 1 standard second...
Lane 1 is observing the shorter rate of second moving through the longer rate of second.
-
Ah, ok... I misunderstood.
In part 1 of the thought experiment we ran a lane 1 car (making marks as per a standard second), in the lane 2 timing (this being a 10% longer second)... The lane 1 car made 110 marks in lane 2.
Then I set what we will now refer to as lane 2 car(a) to make marks as per a lane 2 second. When running a lane 2 car(a) in lane 2, the car makes 100 marks that are 1 metre apart.
If we then run the lane 2 car(a) in lane 1 timing, the car will make 90 marks that are 1.1 metres long.
All this is illustrating is, that if we measure the journey distance using a car time that differs from the lane timing, that it will seem as though distance has been changed, but if we measure the journey distance where the car uses the same rate of second as the lane it is travelling does, then the car will always make 100 marks that are 1 metre apart.
Once this is understood and suitably matched in ones phycology as the constant speed being light speed, and changes in distance between marks being frequency changes, and extended amounts of marks exceeding 100 metres in a lane being extra distance travelled, then I add the gravity potential considerations.
What is the problem you have with this part 1 representation?
-
Part 1 of the thought experiment, when transposed to the phenomenon of light, shows that there is a physical possibility that observation of redshift can be interpreted differently to Hubble's red shift velocity interpretation.
This alternative interpretation that I suggest results in a universe that makes all its development in the contraction direction...
...I think there is significant cause to consider a universe that is contracting. A subject that am partially addressing elsewhere having given the subject its own thread, and am discussing a particular cause of consideration for a non expanding universe here:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69399.0
-
Did you read my post #121?
I'm having problems making your 1.1m appear as the answer. This is probably in the description of the methodology so I'm trying another interpretation. I'll try and post this as soon as I get time to write it down. In the meantime do check my assumptions.
-
Yes - I did read your post, but do not understand where the problem you are having is...
The lane 2 car(a) is making marks at 1.1 of a lane 1 second, so it makes marks at 1.1 metres apart relative to being measured via a lane 1 second.
In lane 1 the period of time between start and stop light is 10% less than in lane 2...
When we were measuring the lane 2(a) car making marks in the period of time between start and stop light in lane 2, the car was making 100 marks 1 metre apart. (Here we are using the 10% longer second to measure the car making marks as per a 10% longer second... Here the lane second and the car second are equal, as with a lane 1 car in lane 1)
Remembering that the lane 2(a) car is making marks as per a 10% longer second than the lane 1 second - When we run the lane 2(a) car in lane 1, we can see that as measured per a lane 1 second the car will be making marks at 1.1 metres apart... and that within the 10% shorter duration of time between start and stop light in lane 1, (relative to lane 2), the lane 2(a) car will only have time to make 90 marks in lane 1.
Can you please explain where this description is not making sense to you?
-
There are a number of ways your Instructions can be interpreted. In #121 I outlined the one where:
"set the car in lane 2 to make 10 marks per second as per the rate of second used for the 10 second duration between start and stop light in lane 2, this being 10% longer than a lane 1 second[/b]. The lane 2 car travelling in the lane 2 duration between start and stop light will now make 100 marks that are 1 metre apart.
But the lane 2 car travelling in the duration of a lane 1 second will make 90 marks that are 1.1 metres apart..."
If we do this and try to make the 100 marks 1m apart in Lane 2 (at 10marks/s2) we end up, when the car travels in Lane 1, with the marks being 1m apart not 1.1m.
Clearly the maths of this scenario do not work - see #121.
So let us try just one instruction "set the car in lane 2 to make 10 marks per second as per the rate of second used for the 10 second duration between start and stop light in lane 2".
This would make 10 marks/s2, or 10 marks/1.1s1.
In lane2 the car travels 110m in 10s2, or 11m/s2 so will make 100 marks in 11m or 1 mark every 1.1m.
Moving the car to lane 1 we can see that the car will travel 100m at 10m/s1 and will make 90.9marks (10marks/1.1s1) and so again the marks will be 1.1m apart.
However, the speed of the cars (and also light) will change between lanes (as measured in the time of each lane) from 11m/s2 in Lane 2 to 10m/s1 in Lane 1. Also the frequency will change from 10marks/s2 in Lane 2 to 9.09marks/s1 in Lane 1. All of this is due to the way your model treats distance and time.
I don't expect you to accept what I am saying, but I am just pointing out that any mathematician will hit the same issues and will be unable to put your theory into a consistent formula or group of formula and get the same result you do.
-
I cannot make head nor tail of your interpretation of making 0.9 of a mark. A mark is a mark and cannot be broken down into fractions.
Let us just deal with the first paragraph of your post.
You said:
"There are a number of ways your Instructions can be interpreted. In #121 I outlined the one where:
"set the car in lane 2 to make 10 marks per second as per the rate of second used for the 10 second duration between start and stop light in lane 2, this being 10% longer than a lane 1 second[/b]. The lane 2 car travelling in the lane 2 duration between start and stop light will now make 100 marks that are 1 metre apart.
But the lane 2 car travelling in the duration of a lane 1 second will make 90 marks that are 1.1 metres apart..."
If we do this and try to make the 100 marks 1m apart in Lane 2 (at 10marks/s2) we end up, when the car travels in Lane 1, with the marks being 1m apart not 1.1m.
Clearly the maths of this scenario do not work - see # 121"
Unquote:
The maths of this scenario do not work with respect to what? What exactly are you imagining the goal of these maths to be?
The lane 2 car(a) is making marks at 10 marks per second as per a lane 2 second.... But it is making 10 marks every 1.1 seconds (as per a lane 1 second)...
When the lane 2 car(a) travels in the duration of time between start and stop light in lane 1, it will still be making marks at 10 marks every 1.1 seconds as per a lane 1 second.
...But the lane 1 duration of time between start and stop light is only 10 seconds as per a lane 1 second, so the lane 2 car(a) making marks at 10 marks every 1.1 seconds as per a lane 1 second will make 90 marks that are 1.1 metres apart.
There is nothing wrong with these maths.
I do not understand how you arrive at the lane 2 car(a) making 90 marks 1 metre apart in the duration of time between start and stop light in lane 1.
-
If you need a more visual representation:
Let me now add an observer in lane 1 car who is observing the lane 2(a) car travelling in lane 2, from the lane 1 car travelling alongside in lane 1...
As far as the lane 2 car(a) is concerned, it has travelled 100 metres in lane 2 that are 1 metre apart.
As far as an observer in lane 2, timing the event by his lane 2 stopwatch is concerned, the lane 2 car(a) is making 100 marks 1 metre apart...
Matey travelling alongside in his lane 1 car, in lane 1, observed the journey that lane 2 car(a) made in lane 2, timing the event via 10 seconds as per his lane 1 stop watch, and making a mark on lane 1 every time he saw lane 2 car(a) make a mark on lane 2.
As far as Matey is concerned, within the 10 seconds that he timed as per his lane 1 stop watch, and by making a mark on lane 1 every time he saw lane 2 car(a) make a mark in lane 2, according to Matey's measurements the lane 2 car(a) is making 90 marks that are 1.1 metre apart.
Any better?
-
Matey travelling alongside in his lane 1 car, in lane 1, observed the journey that lane 2 car(a) made in lane 2, timing the event via 10 seconds as per his lane 1 stop watch, and making a mark on lane 1 every time he saw lane 2 car(a) make a mark on lane 2...........
Any better?
Again we appear to be talking different scenarios.
I was interpreting your earlier scenario “Then I set what we will now refer to as lane 2 car(a) to make marks as per a lane 2 second...........If we then run the lane 2 car(a) in lane 1 ….......”
However, what you are describing above is different.
The maths of this scenario do not work with respect to what? What exactly are you imagining the goal of these maths to be?
I'm not imagining it to be anything. I was responding to:
do the maths work?
All I was trying to do was help by looking at the maths of the scenarios and you are welcome to use that or not as you wish.
What this has highlighted is what Alan describes as the knitting and you may want to consider rewording some of your scenarios so that the 'interpretation' effects are removed.
I like your idea of the visual approach which does help to clear any confusion.
Good luck, but I'm running out of time on this one - Christmas approaches!!.
-
Actually what I'm describing with Matey is no different at-all from running a lane 2 car in lane 1. You are thinking, I think (scratches head) on the basis that lane 1's time is going to affect lane 2 car(a)'s rate of marking. I'm calculating the effects as separate from each other.
Did you say Christmas? Sorry hadn't noticed. Just seems like more of the same old hell on earth but now getting much much worse, for me anyway, but I don't suppose I'm the only one.
The purpose of part 1 of the thought experiment is merely to illustrate that in the case of distance being travelled at constant speed, using 1 length of second to measure a journey being traveled in a reference frame that has a different length of second, that the calculation will change the value of the 'actual' distance travelled...
...and to illustrate that if one uses the time inherent to the reference frame to measure in that reference frame, that the calculation will not change the value of the 'actual' distance travelled.
Part 1 of the thought experiment also seeks to introduce the notion of the possibility of 2 time dilations in 1 reference frame. The lane 2 car(a) is experiencing 1 time dilation. If the lane 2 car(a) travels in lane 1 it is experiencing another...
This notion of 2 contra directional gravitational time dilations, 1 for the car, and 1 for the lane, comes into play properly in part 2 of the thought experiment. In part 1 we only calculated the results of 1 contra directional time dilation in relation to another. By adding GR to the lane 2 car(b), this being a rate 10% shorter than a lane 1 standard second, calculation of lane 2 from lane 1 now incorporates the calculation of both an increase and a decrease in length of second relative to the standard second being used to calculate with in lane 1. We are now calculating using 3 gravitational time dilation values.
Clearly there is then SR to include, which makes matters far more complex. Hopefully we 'will' get to the stage were we can add in this motion related effect to the picture...
(If one takes the part 1 of the thought experiment representation of each lane number having a progressively longer second, transposes the constant speed of the experiment into light speed, and runs this light speed not on a lane, but across lane 1, lane 2, lane 3, lane 4, etc, the calculation from lane 1 will cause lane 1 to observe a value change in the distance travelled when crossing each lane. In my model this can be held synonymous to a gravitational redshift into a weaker gravitational field)
-
Actually what I'm describing with Matey is no different at-all from running a lane 2 car in lane 1.
That would depend on how the Lane 2 car has been modified.
You are thinking, I think (scratches head) on the basis that lane 1's time is going to affect lane 2 car(a)'s rate of marking.
No, I'm assuming that changing lanes has no effect on the settings of the car.
If you look at my calculations you will see that they are double checked by referencing back to standard seconds. That's what you need to do with the lane 1 car because, unless you have changed the speed of the car, the Lane 1 car will only travel 90m when counting the 90marks.
Moving the Lane 2 car into Lane 1 is the right way of doing it, you can show how an object or light will behave when moving from one area of space to another.
I cannot make head nor tail of your interpretation of making 0.9 of a mark. A mark is a mark and cannot be broken down into fractions.
Sorry, forgot to say, if a car travels more or less than a whole number of marks you denote this with a decimal fraction. This is common with frequency measurements and is essential when you need to convert back and forth between lanes or areas of differing time, otherwise you will just concatenate errors in the calculations.
Anyway, try to get as best a break as you can and enjoy some family time. Come back to it fresh.
-
Yes you are right, I forgot to define which lane 2 car, and now redress this by stating the car in my comment to be the lane 2(a) car, which if you remember is set to make marks as per a lane 2 second. And this lane 2 second is 10% longer than a lane 1 second.
*
Nope - you are wrong. The lane 1 car travelling in lane 1 will still travel 100 metres in the duration of time between start and stop light in lane 1, (or the duration of 10 seconds on a lane 1 stopwatch.)
Matey in the car will make a mark on lane 1 when he observes lane 2 car(a) making a mark. By the remit of a lane 1 second, the lane 2 car(a) making marks at 10 marks per lane 2 second, will be making marks at 1.1 metres apart.
Matey, within the 100 metres that his lane 1 car has travelled in lane 1, making marks on lane 1 at the rate that the lane 2 car(a) is, will have made 90 marks that are 1.1 metres apart.
There is no disputing these maths...
Again, I do not understand how you are arriving at Matey making 90 marks that are 1 metre apart.
*
The car cannot and does not travel over fractions of marks. It can and does travel over distances between marks, and these distances between marks can be fractionalised. The duration of time it takes to travel these distances between marks can be fractionalised, and the speed that is used to travel over these distances between marks can be fractionalised... But... It is not physically possible for the car to travel over half a mark, or 0.9 of a mark. Well, it is physically possible actually, but would be entirely bloody irrelevant to any calculation that we are seeking.
Sorry...
*
I guess it would be impossible for you understand the situation Colin, but take a break from what? That because people in positions of social responsibility and sworn oath abused me, that I am now watching everything I've worked for disintegrate and my animals intermittently going hungry, getting sick, and dying? ...Anyway, as I said, people somewhere in some refugee camp are watching their families, their people, children, going hungry, getting sick, and dying, so what have I got to complain about? Maybe we should perhaps agree to not do seasons greetings aye? Sorry, but I'm not just having my period, or suffering from a bad day at work, ok?
-
Colin, your last post has disappeared... in that post, yes you are getting the idea...but as you mentioned, (in the post that disappeared), the effect of these changes in distance in relation to a change in speed - again, I tell you that the speed must be regarded as constant, that it is the differing length of seconds that is causing the effect, and that distance remains constant...
The lane 2 car(a) does not travel any further in lane 1 than the lane 1 car in lane 1.
The lane 2 car(a) in lane 2 does not travel any further than the lane 1 car travels in lane 1.
...And, the lane 1 car travelling in lane 2 does not travel any further in lane 2 than it does in lane 1....
...It is only because lane 1 car is measuring the distance it traveled in lane 2 with a lane 1 second that it thinks it has travelled 10 metres further in lane 2 than it did in lane 1.
If we were to place an observer in the lane 2 car(a), travelling in in lane 2, who were to drive alongside the lane 1 car making marks in lane 1, and Mateyess in the lane 2 car(a) made a mark on lane 2 every time she saw lane 1 car make a mark in lane 1, she would make 100 marks that were 0.9 metres apart.
Yes this thinking 'can' be equated with light travelling through space, where in my model of the universe, lane 1 is ground level, and lane 2, lane 3, etc, are elevations at radius. In my model a second gets progressively longer at radius as lane numbers escalate. Light travelling across lanes through changes in length of second, will appear to be longer in wavelength when passing across escalating lane numbers, because it takes the light, travelling at constant speed, longer to travel the same distance.
(This can be another means of interpreting red shift observations as an alternative to Hubble's red shift velocities, for a contracting universe.)
Adding GR (not for light, but for anything with mass), by shortening the second for lane 2 car(b) is more complex.
Adding SR, (again, not for light, but for anything with mass), being more complex again.
(Also... I didn't think you were insulting me. I've sent you a pm)
-
Pearl stitch?
0.9 of a mark?
Seriously?
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanujan's_master_theorem
When adding GR and SR overlaid upon my addition of this contra directional gravitational time dilation, it will be obvious that as a body of mass, (ie: m), moves into escalating lane numbers, (ie: radius from M), that because of the addition to the equivalence principle that my model makes, (ie: that light speed cannot exceed the local rate of time), as mass moves into the slower rate of time, the speed m is travelling at starts to be an increased percentage of the speed of light in that reference frame, (ie: speed of light being 299 792 458 metres per longer second), and that SR time dilation effects will be kicking in to a greater degree...
This value of a greater degree of SR time dilation will cause the mass to travel the same amount of distance in a longer amount of time.
Either the value of the degrees of slowing of time, or, when measured via a standard second, the degrees of extra distance travelled, (both will be relative to each other), when travelling through reference frames that are inherent with an increase in length of second relative to the previous, 'should' be synonymous to what is known in current physics as the gamma function...
-
I'm not really sure what there is to be misunderstood about General Relativity describing a contracting universe. Clearly as Einstein had to introduce a cosmological constant to stop GR from describing a contracting universe, GR is indeed naturally inclined towards describing such. It is only Hubble's interpretation of red shift velocities that stand in the way of GR describing a contracting universe.
My models addition of this contra directional time dilation inherent to the gravity fields of open space in relation to M, while describing an alternative interpretation of red shift observation, completely changes the outlook of gravitational time dilation in relation to mass. GR gravitational time dilation becomes an m in relation to M phenomenon, and M in relation to open space is now not 'slowing time', but is instead 'speeding time up'. (giving cause for the acceleration of gravity)...
... Now instead of these cold, frozen in time, energy conservation law breaking, second law of thermodynamics breaking, information losing, black holes of current physics, we can have black holes that are full of the energy usually associated with matter subject to extreme compression, ie: very hot... Indeed a black hole in my model is plasma hot where light cannot shine, hence the blackness.
So... Not only does my model solve the Hawking, Bekenstein conservation of energy law, second law of thermodynamics conundrum, it also negates the need for both dark energy and dark matter, while relying only upon the standard model. (which my model unites with gravity via the added contra directional gravitational time dilation factor for a continuum in quantum).
Given that my model also gives cause and effect mechanics for a Big Bang, an Inflation Period, and a Contraction Period (during which all development of mass clumping occurs). Gives cause for these mechanics to be cyclic. And gives cause for each cycle of the universe to expand in size relative to the last, to trace the many previous cycles of smaller universes back to a primary universe of microscopic proportions born of an energy fluctuation creation moment, (the cause of said creation moment admittedly defeating the extent of my personal logical ability) - I am becoming really disappointed with this site, and indeed do not understand why there is so little response here..???
-
So you want deep space to have a net gravitational field. Now my tiny mind says a field has a defining vector, but as deep space is uniform, homogeneous and infintely symmetrical, the net vector must be zero at any point because there is no special direction.
-
Evan posted the red shift observation mapping of the universe picture on my 'LIGO - what are the probabilities thread'...
...Under the remit of my model's interpretation of red shift observation, deep space will not be as deep as this picture of the mapping of the universe presents. The distances between galaxies, under the remit of my models interpretation of red shift observation, will not be as far flung apart, and emerging luminosity anomalies regarding far flung light sources support this suggestion.
(In fact my model asks you to consider that these spaces in between galaxies, and the physical space taken up by galaxies, were previously taken up by a uniform sea of individual particles that have pulled together resulting in galaxies and tracts of open space in-between.)
Gravity in open space reduces in strength by the inverse square law, so while these deep space areas will have extremely weak fields, there will be nowhere in the universe that has a 0 field.
A vector is a direction. Under this remit there can only be 2 directions, (I think, scratches head)... One being moving into a stronger gravity field, and the other being moving into a weaker gravity field.
-
0.9 of a mark?
Seriously?
Yes, seriously. It can be very useful in maths and physics to consider fractions of things you might normally think of as integers. Let me give an example:
We will use 3 cars running simultaneously in Lane 1.
Car 1 – the original car for lane 1
Car 1.1 – modified to make a mark when lane 2 car (a) makes a mark
Car 2(a) – the lane 2 car modified to make 100 marks at 1m at 10 marks/s2, that is per lane 2 second.
So they all start together and the lane 1 timer starts.
Lane 2 car(a) travelling in Lane 2 makes marks at 10 marks/s2, 1s2=1.1s1 so when travelling in Lane 1 seconds the Lane 2 car(a) will make 9.09 marks/s1 or 0.909 marks at 0.1s1 – the same time that Car 1 has made it's first mark at 1m. You would say that at 0.1s1 car 2(a) had made 0 marks, but if we use 0.909 marks at 0.1s1 we can work out that it will make its first mark at 0.11s1
However, at 0.11s1 Car 1 and Car 1.1 have travelled 1.1m and Car 1.1 has made its first mark, so how far has Car 2(a) travelled?
Car 2(a) in Lane 2 travels at 10m/s2, which in Lane 1 seconds is 9.09m/s1, so after 0.11s1 it will have travelled 1m in lane 1.
So we can say that:
Car 1 is travelling at 10m/s1 making marks at 1m
Car 1.1 is travelling at 10m/s1 making marks at 1.1m
Car 2(a) is travelling at 9.09m/s1 making marks at 1m
So when the timer for Lane 1 lights up the stop light in each car after 10s1:
Car 1 has travelled 100m making 100marks at 1m
Car 1.1 has travelled 100m making 90(.9)marks at 1.1m
Car 2(a) has travelled 90.9m making 90(.9)marks at 1m
It is now obvious that running car 2(a) in Lane 1 is not the same as running Car 1.1 in Lane 1.
It is also obvious that Car 2(a) is measurably (by any Lane 1 observer) slower than Car 1 or Car 1.1.
The only reason that car 1.1 was making marks at 1.1m was that it was pulling ahead of car 2(a).
PS
there will be nowhere in the universe that has a 0 field.
Not true, we've mentioned this before.
-
Firstly Colin, you are using different speeds to describe the scenario, so it's no wonder that you are confusing yourself. Using a fraction of a mark to calculate is highly illogical and totally irrelevant.
Keeping the speed constant, the lane 1 car in lane 1 makes 100 marks at 10 marks per standard second that are 1 metre apart, in a duration between start and stop light that is 10 standard seconds long.
10 marks per second is our constant speed throughout. It is only the length of the second that changes.
The lane 1 car is making marks at 10 marks per standard second, and in the duration of time between start and stop light in lane 2, this being 10% longer duration of time than 10 standard seconds, will make 110 marks that are 1 metre apart. True or false?
The lane 2 car(a) making marks at 10 marks per lane 2 second, within the duration of 10 standard seconds, as measured from lane 1, will make 90 marks that are 1.1 metres apart. True or false?
The lane 2 car(a) making marks every time it see's the lane 1 car make a mark in lane 1, as measured from lane 2, will make 100 marks that are 0.9 of a metre apart. True or false?
*
Yes you have said that before that it is not true that there will be nowhere in the universe that has a 0 gravity field, but you fail to explain why...
I think that you will find that your statement is only valid regarding an expanding universe, and that a 0 gravity field will indeed be nowhere to be found in a contracting universe. A contracting universe being what my model describes...
-
(In fact my model asks you to consider that these spaces in between galaxies, and the physical space taken up by galaxies, were previously taken up by a uniform sea of individual particles that have pulled together resulting in galaxies and tracts of open space in-between.)
Gravity in open space reduces in strength by the inverse square law, so while these deep space areas will have extremely weak fields, there will be nowhere in the universe that has a 0 field.
In other words, "open space" is meaningless, and gravitational fields are always associated with mass. Nothing new here, then.
A vector is a direction.
No, it's an ordered set which can be represented by a magnitude and a direction. Under this remit there can only be 2 directions, (I think, scratches head)... One being moving into a stronger gravity field, and the other being moving into a weaker gravity field.
And nothing new here either. So how (or why) can you hypothesise that time dilatation is other than as predicted by GR and found experimentally?
-
From what I've read about the occurrence of new theories superseding the older theories, is that the new theory must incorporate all that works of the old theory.
So no, nothing really new, except for the fact that current physics has the universe developing into what we see today on an outward trajectory, and my model has the universe develop into what we see today on an inward trajectory.
Also, my model does not predict this contra directional time dilation as a replacement for GR gravitational time dilation. It predicts this contra directional time dilation as an additional time dilation for space surrounding mass that gives cause for the acceleration of gravity. This being the how I can hypothesise an additional time dilation...
Why I can hypothesise this additional time dilation is because the standard model and quantum physics cannot be united with gravity, and under the remit of this addition, and my addition to the equivalence principle, my model 'potentially' can.
So - the term vector is not used in the way that I used it, (ie: a vector is not a direction) - however what I described as a choice of 2 directions, 1 being moving into a stronger gravity field, and the other being moving into a weaker gravity field, and the fact that a gravity field of either description will have a magnitude, what I am describing 'is' a vector set?
-
As Alan has pointed out you can't get around symmetry. Symmetry and conservation laws are intimately connected. You are trying to introduce an asymmetry which would upset the laws of physics. The fact that symmetries are a key feature of the universe can be seen in quantum mechanics on the very small scale involving group theory to the cosmological scale and black holes. You need to demonstrate very concretely why this asymmetry is required and how it fits in with conservation laws.
-
There is nothing in my model that breaks the conservation law.
In fact my model, unlike current physics holds to 'all' physical laws while introducing nothing that is not already observed.
GR requires dark energy and dark matter to obtain symmetry, my model does not.
Alan did not point out asymmetry as far as I am aware, (it is unclear to me your context), he pointed out that in deep space, in a 0 gravity field, a vector would be directionless...
I showed him why, in a contracting universe, there wouldn't be a 0 gravity field, and that a vector set therefore is possible in the spaces between galaxies.
So what is this asymmetry problem that you have identified please Jeff? Because adding the contra directional gravitational time dilation 'does' create a symmetry... So could you please explain why you think it doesn't?
-
In what sense does your idea introduce symmetry?
You might also need to explain this since it is in the interstellar medium.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_cation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_cation)
-
Firstly Colin, you are using different speeds to describe the scenario, so it's no wonder that you are confusing yourself.
No, I am not confusing myself. The speed change is due to the way you defined car2(a), the maths just describes the consequences.
Using a fraction of a mark to calculate is highly illogical and totally irrelevant.
No, totally logical, totally relevant.
You are using marks/second in the same way as frequency where parts of a cycle (or indeed wavelength) are important to define frequency and phase relationships. If you don't take it into account you get the wrong answer.
Keeping the speed constant, the lane 1 car in lane 1 makes 100 marks at 10 marks per standard second that are 1 metre apart, in a duration between start and stop light that is 10 standard seconds long.
10 marks per second is our constant speed throughout. It is only the length of the second that changes.
That's what I used in the maths. The result is a consequence of the above assumptions. Go through the maths and try to understand it.
The real problem is you have something in your mind that cannot be described by the car experiment. I've made progress on looking at a different way of modeling it which moves in the right direction, but given your response on fractions of a mark I don't think you will be open to the way it works. Pity, it was getting interesting.
-
It does not matter if a car makes a whole mark, or a fraction of a mark. What is relevant is how far apart these marks are when a constant speed is measured via a longer or shorter second relative to the length of second in the lane. The mark itself does not have a relevant value. Why can you not understand this?
Ok Colin, make the constant speed the speed of light, and it will be light making 299 792 458 marks per second.
In lane 1 light is making marks at 299 792 458 marks per standard second.
In lane 2 light is making marks at 299 792 458 marks per second that is 10% longer than a standard second.
Measuring the light in lane 2 from lane 1, lane 1's standard second will make the lane 2 light appear as if it has made 10% fewer marks, and that these marks will be 10% longer in length.
Measuring the lane 1 light from lane 2, the lane 1 light will have made 299 792 458 marks, but the marks will be 10% shorter in length.
All this is doing is illustrating how distances appear to change when measuring a constant speed travelling in a rate of time differing from the rate of time being used to measure with.
Now I double, triple dare you to come back to me with variable speeds for light, and sincerely hope you have ditched this ridiculous notion that a mark should be fractionalised!
On the other hand, if you are all good then we can return to the cars travelling at 10 metres per variable seconds in lanes operating at variable seconds in order to add GR and SR to this contra directional time dilation picture...
I do not need to think about these maths Colin. These maths are simplicity itself. Adding GR and SR to the picture are much more complex though, where I do need help to check the dimensions against current physics. For one instance, it is complexities such as the gamma function in relation to the Laplace transformation that I have in mind when I am asking for mathematical help.