0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Clip"the photon's local frame / what a photon "experiences" is not a valid question under special relativity - observation, experience, and measurement cannot be divorced from matter, which in turn has mass, this means it cannot go the speed of light, which means it cannot be in the photon's frame . more, it means the photon cannot have a local frame because frames are inertial."

a gedanken that starts with an impossible scenario can generate any outcome with no reference to truth, logic or theory.

The delay is caused by the curvature of space-time, the geodesic of which is longer than the straight line between any two points in space.

In various places I think I have tried the patience of a number of scientific posters with this sort of discussion. The fact is I have still not managed to get my head round it.Mike asks a question to which I would really like to see an answer: "If light does not travel instantaneously ... in its own reference frame" What does it do? What does mainline science have to say about this?

Quote from: imatfaal a gedanken that starts with an impossible scenario can generate any outcome with no reference to truth, logic or theory. Didn’t Einstein start a gedanken by imagining himself keeping pace with light?

Quote from: MikeS The delay is caused by the curvature of space-time, the geodesic of which is longer than the straight line between any two points in space. I thought the definition of a geodesic was that it represents the shortest distance between two points in curved spacetime.

In various places I think I have tried the patience of a number of scientific posters with this sort of discussion. The fact is I have still not managed to get my head round it.Mike asks a question to which I would really like to see an answer: "If light does not travel instantaneously ... in its own reference frame" What does it do? What does mainline science have to say about this?Quote a gedanken that starts with an impossible scenario can generate any outcome with no reference to truth, logic or theory. Didn’t Einstein start a gedanken by imagining himself keeping pace with light? Quote The delay is caused by the curvature of space-time, the geodesic of which is longer than the straight line between any two points in space. I thought the definition of a geodesic was that it represents the shortest distance between two points in curved spacetime.

QuoteQuote The delay is caused by the curvature of space-time, the geodesic of which is longer than the straight line between any two points in space. I thought the definition of a geodesic was that it represents the shortest distance between two points in curved spacetime.Bill, yes you are quite right but a curved line between two points is longer than a straight line between the same two points. It is still the shortest distance between two points in curved space-time. That's the point I was trying to make.

Quote The delay is caused by the curvature of space-time, the geodesic of which is longer than the straight line between any two points in space. I thought the definition of a geodesic was that it represents the shortest distance between two points in curved spacetime.

imatfaalPlease correct me if I am wrong (didn't really need to ask did I) but I understand you to be saying that mainline science, including SR and GR has no views on what a photon experiences on the subjects of either, time or distance?

Without gravity and hence time there would be no curvature of space and the distance between the two points would be shorter.

You cannot talk about ‘Time’ without considering ‘Gravity’ as the two are intertwined in space-time.

Einstein showed us that gravity is the same as acceleration but to the best of my knowledge he did not elaborate upon that.

Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time. We normally think of this as a progressive change in distance covered, with time but it is equally valid to think of it as a change in the ‘going rate or dilation of time’ with distance.

Time gravitationally dilates near to a large mass.

Therefore time passes slower near to the Earths surface than it does further away. This difference is progressive. A way of visualizing this is to consider ‘the going rate of time’ or time dilation to be in shells around the Earth like layers of an onion. Each shell represents a particular time dilation factor with the greatest time dilation being closest to the Earth getting progressively less in each subsequent layer as you travel further from the Earth.

The Earth, like all objects is continually passing through space-time. If we think of these shells of time as continually collapsing on the Earth, each shell of time dilates as it approaches the Earths surface.

It is perhaps easiest to visualize it by considering space to be filled by something, say aether. This aether is continually being sucked into the Earth like a waterfall but all over the Earths surface . The aether may or may not exist, the important point is it carries shells of time with it and these shells of time dilate more as they approach the Earth. As shells of time dilate approaching the Earth so the Earth accelerates through these shells of time. This is where the acceleration comes from; it is an acceleration in time. All massive bodies produce a gravitational ‘field’ as they accelerate through time. The aforementioned also explains why bodies fall within a gravitational field. As the aether or shells of time fall upon the Earth so do other bodies that are within that sphere of influence. They are swept along with the changing rate of time dilation. As any object (mass) approaches the Earth (or any massive body), it enters shells of more and more dilated time. This reduces all of the useful energy of the object as entropy increases. The increased entropy represents a state of increased stability within the system. (When any two objects combine, time for them dilates, entropy increases and they reach a state of greater stability. For example a book on a table has more usable energy than the same book on the floor. The book on the floor is more stable as it can't fall off the table)

Gravity then is the Universes way of returning to its ground state, which ideally would be zero useable energy, near zero temperature, near zero passing time and near zero size. These conditions represent the Universes most stable configuration and these conditions are best met within a black hole.

Quote from: MikeS on 31/01/2012 14:06:32You cannot talk about ‘Time’ without considering ‘Gravity’ as the two are intertwined in space-time. of course you can. Gravity is an artefact of warped spacetime - but space time does not require gravity. Many theories rely on flat space - SR for one.QuoteEinstein showed us that gravity is the same as acceleration but to the best of my knowledge he did not elaborate upon that. Quite a lot of his work was based on the fact that in a local and small enough frame that acceleration and gravity were equivalent.[/color]QuoteAcceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time. We normally think of this as a progressive change in distance covered, with time but it is equally valid to think of it as a change in the ‘going rate or dilation of time’ with distance. Acceleration is the second time derivative of position - your first sentence had it spot on. Your second definition is dubious QuoteTime gravitationally dilates near to a large mass. Technically it is the gravitational potential Quote Therefore time passes slower near to the Earths surface than it does further away. This difference is progressive. A way of visualizing this is to consider ‘the going rate of time’ or time dilation to be in shells around the Earth like layers of an onion. Each shell represents a particular time dilation factor with the greatest time dilation being closest to the Earth getting progressively less in each subsequent layer as you travel further from the Earth. QuoteThe Earth, like all objects is continually passing through space-time. If we think of these shells of time as continually collapsing on the Earth, each shell of time dilates as it approaches the Earths surface. Nope - gonna have to explain that more.Quote It is perhaps easiest to visualize it by considering space to be filled by something, say aether. This aether is continually being sucked into the Earth like a waterfall but all over the Earths surface . The aether may or may not exist, the important point is it carries shells of time with it and these shells of time dilate more as they approach the Earth. As shells of time dilate approaching the Earth so the Earth accelerates through these shells of time. This is where the acceleration comes from; it is an acceleration in time. All massive bodies produce a gravitational ‘field’ as they accelerate through time. The aforementioned also explains why bodies fall within a gravitational field. As the aether or shells of time fall upon the Earth so do other bodies that are within that sphere of influence. They are swept along with the changing rate of time dilation. As any object (mass) approaches the Earth (or any massive body), it enters shells of more and more dilated time. This reduces all of the useful energy of the object as entropy increases. The increased entropy represents a state of increased stability within the system. (When any two objects combine, time for them dilates, entropy increases and they reach a state of greater stability. For example a book on a table has more usable energy than the same book on the floor. The book on the floor is more stable as it can't fall off the table) You might want to give some more concrete examples, be more specific and do some maths to back that upQuoteGravity then is the Universes way of returning to its ground state, which ideally would be zero useable energy, near zero temperature, near zero passing time and near zero size. These conditions represent the Universes most stable configuration and these conditions are best met within a black hole. Your conditions are not complementary; in a situation of zero gravitational potential where is the time dilation coming from? Near zero size would mean that any radiation is constrained to short wavelength, high frequency ...

Quote from: imatfaal on 31/01/2012 16:46:01Quote from: MikeS on 31/01/2012 14:06:32You cannot talk about ‘Time’ without considering ‘Gravity’ as the two are intertwined in space-time. of course you can. Gravity is an artefact of warped spacetime - but space time does not require gravity. Many theories rely on flat space - SR for one.QuoteWe know that time is affected by gravity or gravitational potential, if you like, so gravity has to be considered when talking about time. You say “gravity is an artifact of warped space-time” but I think this is like the chicken and the egg, which came first. In the normal universe, not a black hole, you can’t have gravity without time and you can’t have time without gravity. You say that “space-time does not require gravity” It does, without gravity time has no arrow. There is no space-time without gravity. No mass equals no gravity which is essentially the condition probably prevailing prior to the birth of the universe. Whether or not time existed prior to the birth of the Universe may be debatable but it probably did not.

Quote from: MikeS on 31/01/2012 14:06:32You cannot talk about ‘Time’ without considering ‘Gravity’ as the two are intertwined in space-time. of course you can. Gravity is an artefact of warped spacetime - but space time does not require gravity. Many theories rely on flat space - SR for one.QuoteWe know that time is affected by gravity or gravitational potential, if you like, so gravity has to be considered when talking about time. You say “gravity is an artifact of warped space-time” but I think this is like the chicken and the egg, which came first. In the normal universe, not a black hole, you can’t have gravity without time and you can’t have time without gravity. You say that “space-time does not require gravity” It does, without gravity time has no arrow. There is no space-time without gravity. No mass equals no gravity which is essentially the condition probably prevailing prior to the birth of the universe. Whether or not time existed prior to the birth of the Universe may be debatable but it probably did not.

We know that time is affected by gravity or gravitational potential, if you like, so gravity has to be considered when talking about time. You say “gravity is an artifact of warped space-time” but I think this is like the chicken and the egg, which came first. In the normal universe, not a black hole, you can’t have gravity without time and you can’t have time without gravity. You say that “space-time does not require gravity” It does, without gravity time has no arrow. There is no space-time without gravity. No mass equals no gravity which is essentially the condition probably prevailing prior to the birth of the universe. Whether or not time existed prior to the birth of the Universe may be debatable but it probably did not.

Quote from: imatfaal on 31/01/2012 16:46:01QuoteEinstein showed us that gravity is the same as acceleration but to the best of my knowledge he did not elaborate upon that. Quite a lot of his work was based on the fact that in a local and small enough frame that acceleration and gravity were equivalent.QuoteI did say “to the best of my knowledge”. Did Einstein actually explain in what way a massive object is accelerating?

QuoteEinstein showed us that gravity is the same as acceleration but to the best of my knowledge he did not elaborate upon that. Quite a lot of his work was based on the fact that in a local and small enough frame that acceleration and gravity were equivalent.QuoteI did say “to the best of my knowledge”. Did Einstein actually explain in what way a massive object is accelerating?

I did say “to the best of my knowledge”. Did Einstein actually explain in what way a massive object is accelerating?

Quote from: imatfaal on 31/01/2012 16:46:01Quote from: MikeS on 31/01/2012 14:06:32QuoteAcceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time. We normally think of this as a progressive change in distance covered, with time but it is equally valid to think of it as a change in the ‘going rate or dilation of time’ with distance. QuoteAcceleration is the second time derivative of position - your first sentence had it spot on. Your second definition is dubious Quote from: MikeAverage acceleration is the change in velocity (Δv) divided by the change in time (Δt). There are two factors that affect acceleration, the change in velocity and time. Changing either will affect the acceleration. Normally we think of acceleration as being the change in velocity. That is, an increase in the distance covered in a given time. However by keeping the distance constant but contracting time (speeding up) we still have acceleration. Have I made that clear?

Quote from: MikeS on 31/01/2012 14:06:32QuoteAcceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time. We normally think of this as a progressive change in distance covered, with time but it is equally valid to think of it as a change in the ‘going rate or dilation of time’ with distance. QuoteAcceleration is the second time derivative of position - your first sentence had it spot on. Your second definition is dubious Quote from: MikeAverage acceleration is the change in velocity (Δv) divided by the change in time (Δt). There are two factors that affect acceleration, the change in velocity and time. Changing either will affect the acceleration. Normally we think of acceleration as being the change in velocity. That is, an increase in the distance covered in a given time. However by keeping the distance constant but contracting time (speeding up) we still have acceleration. Have I made that clear?

QuoteAcceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time. We normally think of this as a progressive change in distance covered, with time but it is equally valid to think of it as a change in the ‘going rate or dilation of time’ with distance. QuoteAcceleration is the second time derivative of position - your first sentence had it spot on. Your second definition is dubious Quote from: MikeAverage acceleration is the change in velocity (Δv) divided by the change in time (Δt). There are two factors that affect acceleration, the change in velocity and time. Changing either will affect the acceleration. Normally we think of acceleration as being the change in velocity. That is, an increase in the distance covered in a given time. However by keeping the distance constant but contracting time (speeding up) we still have acceleration. Have I made that clear?

Acceleration is the second time derivative of position - your first sentence had it spot on. Your second definition is dubious

Average acceleration is the change in velocity (Δv) divided by the change in time (Δt). There are two factors that affect acceleration, the change in velocity and time. Changing either will affect the acceleration. Normally we think of acceleration as being the change in velocity. That is, an increase in the distance covered in a given time. However by keeping the distance constant but contracting time (speeding up) we still have acceleration. Have I made that clear?

Quote from: imatfaal on 31/01/2012 16:46:01Quote from: MikeS on 31/01/2012 14:06:32QuoteTime gravitationally dilates near to a large mass. QuoteTechnically it is the gravitational potential QuoteI agree the but the result is “Time gravitationally dilates near to a large mass.”[\quote]

Quote from: MikeS on 31/01/2012 14:06:32QuoteTime gravitationally dilates near to a large mass. QuoteTechnically it is the gravitational potential QuoteI agree the but the result is “Time gravitationally dilates near to a large mass.”[\quote]

QuoteTime gravitationally dilates near to a large mass. QuoteTechnically it is the gravitational potential QuoteI agree the but the result is “Time gravitationally dilates near to a large mass.”[\quote]

Technically it is the gravitational potential

I agree the but the result is “Time gravitationally dilates near to a large mass.”

Quote from: imatfaal on 31/01/2012 16:46:01Quote from: MikeS on 31/01/2012 14:06:32The Earth, like all objects is continually passing through space-time. If we think of these shells of time as continually collapsing on the Earth, each shell of time dilates as it approaches the Earths surface. QuoteNope - gonna have to explain that more.[/color]QuoteIt is not easy to either visualize or explain but here goes.The Earth is continually passing through space time. The easiest way for me to visualize this is to consider time as being concentric shells surrounding the Earth. The closest shell being the most time dilated (due to gravity), becoming progressively less dilated further away. The Earth is passing through time or you could think of it as time flowing over the Earth. Each shell has a different time dilation factor. The Earth passes through them, (it is easier to think of the shells as collapsing upon the Earth) As the shells collapse upon the Earth, you can picture this as time passing more slowly as it approaches the Earth. From the Earths reference frame time passes faster as it passes from its existing time shell (reference frame) into the next. In other words, the Earth is accelerating. I hope that made it clear?

Quote from: MikeS on 31/01/2012 14:06:32The Earth, like all objects is continually passing through space-time. If we think of these shells of time as continually collapsing on the Earth, each shell of time dilates as it approaches the Earths surface. QuoteNope - gonna have to explain that more.[/color]QuoteIt is not easy to either visualize or explain but here goes.The Earth is continually passing through space time. The easiest way for me to visualize this is to consider time as being concentric shells surrounding the Earth. The closest shell being the most time dilated (due to gravity), becoming progressively less dilated further away. The Earth is passing through time or you could think of it as time flowing over the Earth. Each shell has a different time dilation factor. The Earth passes through them, (it is easier to think of the shells as collapsing upon the Earth) As the shells collapse upon the Earth, you can picture this as time passing more slowly as it approaches the Earth. From the Earths reference frame time passes faster as it passes from its existing time shell (reference frame) into the next. In other words, the Earth is accelerating. I hope that made it clear?

Nope - gonna have to explain that more.[/color]

It is not easy to either visualize or explain but here goes.The Earth is continually passing through space time. The easiest way for me to visualize this is to consider time as being concentric shells surrounding the Earth. The closest shell being the most time dilated (due to gravity), becoming progressively less dilated further away. The Earth is passing through time or you could think of it as time flowing over the Earth. Each shell has a different time dilation factor. The Earth passes through them, (it is easier to think of the shells as collapsing upon the Earth) As the shells collapse upon the Earth, you can picture this as time passing more slowly as it approaches the Earth. From the Earths reference frame time passes faster as it passes from its existing time shell (reference frame) into the next. In other words, the Earth is accelerating. I hope that made it clear?

Quote from: imatfaal on 31/01/2012 16:46:01Quote from: MikeS on 31/01/2012 14:06:32It is perhaps easiest to visualize it by considering space to be filled by something, say aether. This aether is continually being sucked into the Earth like a waterfall but all over the Earths surface . The aether may or may not exist, the important point is it carries shells of time with it and these shells of time dilate more as they approach the Earth. As shells of time dilate approaching the Earth so the Earth accelerates through these shells of time. This is where the acceleration comes from; it is an acceleration in time. All massive bodies produce a gravitational ‘field’ as they accelerate through time. The aforementioned also explains why bodies fall within a gravitational field. As the aether or shells of time fall upon the Earth so do other bodies that are within that sphere of influence. They are swept along with the changing rate of time dilation. As any object (mass) approaches the Earth (or any massive body), it enters shells of more and more dilated time. This reduces all of the useful energy of the object as entropy increases. The increased entropy represents a state of increased stability within the system. (When any two objects combine, time for them dilates, entropy increases and they reach a state of greater stability. For example a book on a table has more usable energy than the same book on the floor. The book on the floor is more stable as it can't fall off the table) QuoteYou might want to give some more concrete examples, be more specific and do some maths to back that up[/color]QuoteQuoteI have elaborated on much of the above elsewhere in this reply and hope that has clarified matters. I would be happy to explain in more detail anything still unclear. I do not think there is much that is new in all of this. It is more like assembling known pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Unfortunately, I am not a mathematician, I wish I was.

Quote from: MikeS on 31/01/2012 14:06:32It is perhaps easiest to visualize it by considering space to be filled by something, say aether. This aether is continually being sucked into the Earth like a waterfall but all over the Earths surface . The aether may or may not exist, the important point is it carries shells of time with it and these shells of time dilate more as they approach the Earth. As shells of time dilate approaching the Earth so the Earth accelerates through these shells of time. This is where the acceleration comes from; it is an acceleration in time. All massive bodies produce a gravitational ‘field’ as they accelerate through time. The aforementioned also explains why bodies fall within a gravitational field. As the aether or shells of time fall upon the Earth so do other bodies that are within that sphere of influence. They are swept along with the changing rate of time dilation. As any object (mass) approaches the Earth (or any massive body), it enters shells of more and more dilated time. This reduces all of the useful energy of the object as entropy increases. The increased entropy represents a state of increased stability within the system. (When any two objects combine, time for them dilates, entropy increases and they reach a state of greater stability. For example a book on a table has more usable energy than the same book on the floor. The book on the floor is more stable as it can't fall off the table) QuoteYou might want to give some more concrete examples, be more specific and do some maths to back that up[/color]QuoteQuoteI have elaborated on much of the above elsewhere in this reply and hope that has clarified matters. I would be happy to explain in more detail anything still unclear. I do not think there is much that is new in all of this. It is more like assembling known pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Unfortunately, I am not a mathematician, I wish I was.

You might want to give some more concrete examples, be more specific and do some maths to back that up[/color]

QuoteI have elaborated on much of the above elsewhere in this reply and hope that has clarified matters. I would be happy to explain in more detail anything still unclear. I do not think there is much that is new in all of this. It is more like assembling known pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Unfortunately, I am not a mathematician, I wish I was.

I have elaborated on much of the above elsewhere in this reply and hope that has clarified matters. I would be happy to explain in more detail anything still unclear. I do not think there is much that is new in all of this. It is more like assembling known pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Unfortunately, I am not a mathematician, I wish I was.

Quote from: imatfaal on 31/01/2012 16:46:01Quote from: MikeS on 31/01/2012 14:06:32QuoteGravity then is the Universes way of returning to its ground state, which ideally would be zero useable energy, near zero temperature, near zero passing time and near zero size. These conditions represent the Universes most stable configuration and these conditions are best met within a black hole QuoteYour conditions are not complementary; in a situation of zero gravitational potential where is the time dilation coming from? Near zero size would mean that any radiation is constrained to short wavelength, high frequency ...QuoteI should have added and near zero entropy.I believe the conditions are indeed complementary and consistent with a black hole. The time dilation is an artifact of the intense gravitational field of the black hole.Whilst radiation still exists, the universe reflects this in its size. It is only with the absorption of all radiation could the universe deflate to zero size..

Quote from: MikeS on 31/01/2012 14:06:32QuoteGravity then is the Universes way of returning to its ground state, which ideally would be zero useable energy, near zero temperature, near zero passing time and near zero size. These conditions represent the Universes most stable configuration and these conditions are best met within a black hole QuoteYour conditions are not complementary; in a situation of zero gravitational potential where is the time dilation coming from? Near zero size would mean that any radiation is constrained to short wavelength, high frequency ...QuoteI should have added and near zero entropy.I believe the conditions are indeed complementary and consistent with a black hole. The time dilation is an artifact of the intense gravitational field of the black hole.Whilst radiation still exists, the universe reflects this in its size. It is only with the absorption of all radiation could the universe deflate to zero size..

QuoteGravity then is the Universes way of returning to its ground state, which ideally would be zero useable energy, near zero temperature, near zero passing time and near zero size. These conditions represent the Universes most stable configuration and these conditions are best met within a black hole QuoteYour conditions are not complementary; in a situation of zero gravitational potential where is the time dilation coming from? Near zero size would mean that any radiation is constrained to short wavelength, high frequency ...QuoteI should have added and near zero entropy.I believe the conditions are indeed complementary and consistent with a black hole. The time dilation is an artifact of the intense gravitational field of the black hole.Whilst radiation still exists, the universe reflects this in its size. It is only with the absorption of all radiation could the universe deflate to zero size..

Gravity then is the Universes way of returning to its ground state, which ideally would be zero useable energy, near zero temperature, near zero passing time and near zero size. These conditions represent the Universes most stable configuration and these conditions are best met within a black hole QuoteYour conditions are not complementary; in a situation of zero gravitational potential where is the time dilation coming from? Near zero size would mean that any radiation is constrained to short wavelength, high frequency ...QuoteI should have added and near zero entropy.I believe the conditions are indeed complementary and consistent with a black hole. The time dilation is an artifact of the intense gravitational field of the black hole.Whilst radiation still exists, the universe reflects this in its size. It is only with the absorption of all radiation could the universe deflate to zero size.

Your conditions are not complementary; in a situation of zero gravitational potential where is the time dilation coming from? Near zero size would mean that any radiation is constrained to short wavelength, high frequency ...QuoteI should have added and near zero entropy.I believe the conditions are indeed complementary and consistent with a black hole. The time dilation is an artifact of the intense gravitational field of the black hole.Whilst radiation still exists, the universe reflects this in its size. It is only with the absorption of all radiation could the universe deflate to zero size.

I should have added and near zero entropy.I believe the conditions are indeed complementary and consistent with a black hole. The time dilation is an artifact of the intense gravitational field of the black hole.Whilst radiation still exists, the universe reflects this in its size. It is only with the absorption of all radiation could the universe deflate to zero size.

As a side issue, I believe the ground state of the Universe is as described above. If, as believed by many the Universe is doomed to expand forever and ultimately die through lack of fuel. It will never reach its ground state despite the ground state being more stable. This is one reason that makes me believe it is not doomed to expand forever.

MikeS and his amazing technicolour dreampostQuote from: MikeS on 01/02/2012 12:05:02Quote from: imatfaal on 31/01/2012 16:46:01Quote from: MikeS on 31/01/2012 14:06:32You cannot talk about ‘Time’ without considering ‘Gravity’ as the two are intertwined in space-time. of course you can. Gravity is an artefact of warped spacetime - but space time does not require gravity. Many theories rely on flat space - SR for one.QuoteWe know that time is affected by gravity or gravitational potential, if you like, so gravity has to be considered when talking about time. You say “gravity is an artifact of warped space-time” but I think this is like the chicken and the egg, which came first. In the normal universe, not a black hole, you can’t have gravity without time and you can’t have time without gravity. You say that “space-time does not require gravity” It does, without gravity time has no arrow. There is no space-time without gravity. No mass equals no gravity which is essentially the condition probably prevailing prior to the birth of the universe. Whether or not time existed prior to the birth of the Universe may be debatable but it probably did not.you can have an instantaneous force - although not a perceived action or consequence. gravity, to be seen or observed needs the passing of time, but does not have time as a component in the classical newtonian formulation F=GMmr^-2. that time is dilated by differing gravitational potentials is different in a subtle way - the difference needs alternate positions of observation to be obvious - ie you cannot look at your watch and say Oh Time is dilated here. time has a clear direction without gravity and there is spacetime without gravity - the whole of Special relativity is based on flat space time with non-accelerating frame of reference - ie there is no gravity there.

part the secondQuote from: MikeS on 01/02/2012 12:05:02Quote from: imatfaal on 31/01/2012 16:46:01QuoteEinstein showed us that gravity is the same as acceleration but to the best of my knowledge he did not elaborate upon that. Quite a lot of his work was based on the fact that in a local and small enough frame that acceleration and gravity were equivalent.QuoteI did say “to the best of my knowledge”. Did Einstein actually explain in what way a massive object is accelerating?I think the best way to think about it is the principle of least action - that without an outside impetus a particle will follow a path that minimizes certain combinations/calculations of potential and kinetic energy. It could go around the houses and do loop-the-loops but the simplest, least energetic way is for it to follow the geodesic. Einstein reversed the question to - why would it do anything else?

part the thirdQuote from: MikeS on 01/02/2012 12:05:02Quote from: imatfaal on 31/01/2012 16:46:01Quote from: MikeS on 31/01/2012 14:06:32QuoteAcceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time. We normally think of this as a progressive change in distance covered, with time but it is equally valid to think of it as a change in the ‘going rate or dilation of time’ with distance. QuoteAcceleration is the second time derivative of position - your first sentence had it spot on. Your second definition is dubious Quote from: MikeAverage acceleration is the change in velocity (Δv) divided by the change in time (Δt). There are two factors that affect acceleration, the change in velocity and time. Changing either will affect the acceleration. Normally we think of acceleration as being the change in velocity. That is, an increase in the distance covered in a given time. However by keeping the distance constant but contracting time (speeding up) we still have acceleration. Have I made that clear? OK - I See what you mean. Will have to think and make sure there isn't a problem with that - it is very complicated

Quote from: MikeS on 01/02/2012 12:05:02Quote from: imatfaal on 31/01/2012 16:46:01Quote from: MikeS on 31/01/2012 14:06:32QuoteTime gravitationally dilates near to a large mass. QuoteTechnically it is the gravitational potential QuoteI agree the but the result is “Time gravitationally dilates near to a large mass.”[\quote] The devil is in the details - in a complicated subject you are best advised to stick to the letter of law rather than try and expand it, unless you need to expand it.

Quote from: MikeS on 01/02/2012 12:05:02Quote from: imatfaal on 31/01/2012 16:46:01Quote from: MikeS on 31/01/2012 14:06:32The Earth, like all objects is continually passing through space-time. If we think of these shells of time as continually collapsing on the Earth, each shell of time dilates as it approaches the Earths surface. QuoteNope - gonna have to explain that more.[/color]QuoteIt is not easy to either visualize or explain but here goes.The Earth is continually passing through space time. The easiest way for me to visualize this is to consider time as being concentric shells surrounding the Earth. The closest shell being the most time dilated (due to gravity), becoming progressively less dilated further away. The Earth is passing through time or you could think of it as time flowing over the Earth. Each shell has a different time dilation factor. The Earth passes through them, (it is easier to think of the shells as collapsing upon the Earth) As the shells collapse upon the Earth, you can picture this as time passing more slowly as it approaches the Earth. From the Earths reference frame time passes faster as it passes from its existing time shell (reference frame) into the next. In other words, the Earth is accelerating. I hope that made it clear?that sounds like a 3d object changing in time - rather than a 4d spacetime. a shell of a sphere or ball is a 2d/3d object. I understand your problems - they are universal not unique. I am sure you understand how to transform an object around the line y=x on a cartesian plane. you need to be able to think of that level of transformation between space and time - it isnt an object in space that changes in time, it is an object in spacetime. This is one of the areas where maths actually help visualise the reality - will see if there is a nice webpage. check out hyperphysics whilst I am looking - that is always good.

Quote from: MikeS on 01/02/2012 12:05:02Quote from: imatfaal on 31/01/2012 16:46:01Quote from: MikeS on 31/01/2012 14:06:32It is perhaps easiest to visualize it by considering space to be filled by something, say aether. This aether is continually being sucked into the Earth like a waterfall but all over the Earths surface . The aether may or may not exist, the important point is it carries shells of time with it and these shells of time dilate more as they approach the Earth. As shells of time dilate approaching the Earth so the Earth accelerates through these shells of time. This is where the acceleration comes from; it is an acceleration in time. All massive bodies produce a gravitational ‘field’ as they accelerate through time. The aforementioned also explains why bodies fall within a gravitational field. As the aether or shells of time fall upon the Earth so do other bodies that are within that sphere of influence. They are swept along with the changing rate of time dilation. As any object (mass) approaches the Earth (or any massive body), it enters shells of more and more dilated time. This reduces all of the useful energy of the object as entropy increases. The increased entropy represents a state of increased stability within the system. (When any two objects combine, time for them dilates, entropy increases and they reach a state of greater stability. For example a book on a table has more usable energy than the same book on the floor. The book on the floor is more stable as it can't fall off the table) QuoteYou might want to give some more concrete examples, be more specific and do some maths to back that up[/color]QuoteQuoteI have elaborated on much of the above elsewhere in this reply and hope that has clarified matters. I would be happy to explain in more detail anything still unclear. I do not think there is much that is new in all of this. It is more like assembling known pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Unfortunately, I am not a mathematician, I wish I was.My problem with this is that I already have a mathematically sound (that means that all the maths agrees with itself and there are no logical screw-up) and empirically good (by that I mean that nothing has been shown to be outside the predictions and calculations of the model) theory to work on - and it does not involve the extras and add-ons. It isn't that there isn't room for improvement - but more that any improvements must be at least as good and must be more basic and simple. ie they must have the same (or better predictive power), be logically and mathematically sound, AND have some little bit more insight to the lower fundamental concepts of what the hell is going on.

part the almost last Quote from: MikeS on 01/02/2012 12:05:02Quote from: imatfaal on 31/01/2012 16:46:01Quote from: MikeS on 31/01/2012 14:06:32QuoteGravity then is the Universes way of returning to its ground state, which ideally would be zero useable energy, near zero temperature, near zero passing time and near zero size. These conditions represent the Universes most stable configuration and these conditions are best met within a black hole QuoteYour conditions are not complementary; in a situation of zero gravitational potential where is the time dilation coming from? Near zero size would mean that any radiation is constrained to short wavelength, high frequency ...QuoteI should have added and near zero entropy.I believe the conditions are indeed complementary and consistent with a black hole. The time dilation is an artifact of the intense gravitational field of the black hole.Whilst radiation still exists, the universe reflects this in its size. It is only with the absorption of all radiation could the universe deflate to zero size.. By complementary I meant they don't fit together - they do not complement each other - and they don't. BUt I had not really grasped what you were getting at - I thought you were using the black hole as an example of the conditions - but you are saying that a universal black hole is the end state. hmmm - interesting - problem is that that we have superclusters that we are pretty certain are not gravitationally bound.

part the last Quote from: MikeS on 26/01/2012 16:06:14As a side issue, I believe the ground state of the Universe is as described above. If, as believed by many the Universe is doomed to expand forever and ultimately die through lack of fuel. It will never reach its ground state despite the ground state being more stable. This is one reason that makes me believe it is not doomed to expand forever. Is it truly a ground state if it will never reach it? It is a stable end-state - and there are many stable end-states to the universe that have been postulated; but we do have to make a passing acquaintance with experimental observation, and things are not slowing, stopping and reversing

The law does not mention time but it is implied as nothing can happen outside of time.

In what way does time have a clear direction without gravity? Please give examples.

Fact remains everything that happens within SR takes place in time and is affected by gravity and acceleration

I agree about the path of lease action but that does not explain, “in what way a massive object is accelerating (in the context of gravity)?”

Different people interpret 4d space-time in different ways. It can be the 3d of familiar space plus the 1d of time or it can be that they are intertwined in such manner that we can neither visualize or adequately describe it.

Einsteins theory on gravity only goes so far

In a nutshell....

I believe the conditions I have mentioned do represent the ground state of the Universe. The Universe will ultimately attempt to reach its ground state and regardless of what we think it is doing or should do, it will do what it has to do.

QuoteThe law does not mention time but it is implied as nothing can happen outside of time. your implication - not necessarily trueYes it is true. The Laws of Nature or Physics apply to the Universe. Therefore, anything that happens has to happen within time. Time is a measure of change and for something to ‘happen’ it does so within time. If you have any examples of anything ‘happening’ (changing) outside of time I would be very interested to see them.QuoteIn what way does time have a clear direction without gravity? Please give examples. Clearly done in other thread.I do not agree the issue has been resolved to show that time has a clear direction without gravity. QuoteFact remains everything that happens within SR takes place in time and is affected by gravity and acceleration No - not clearly true that everything is affected by gravity and accelerationIn the sense that SR applies in a special case to the Universe and everywhere in the Universe is affected by gravity then SR itself must be affected by gravity. Likewise, everywhere, therefore everything in the Universe is affected by gravity, as everywhere in the Universe has a gravitational potential.QuoteI agree about the path of lease action but that does not explain, “in what way a massive object is accelerating (in the context of gravity)?” Yes it does - but it is very involved and not understandable in hand-wavy terms.That does not explain it. Mathematics is only a language that is sometimes more applicable than normal language. Initially the thoughts to be expressed have to be formulated in words prior to being transcribed into the language of maths. Therefore, it should be relatively easy to describe in terms of Relativity why a massive object is accelerating (in the context of gravity). My relativistic explanation is quite simply that the object is accelerating in time as explained in detail elsewhere in this thread.QuoteDifferent people interpret 4d space-time in different ways. It can be the 3d of familiar space plus the 1d of time or it can be that they are intertwined in such manner that we can neither visualize or adequately describe it. Space time - for most stuff and models to work must be able to be transformed and related mathematically with each other. Maths is all that is needed to describe spacetime in these cases - the model is not less good because it is not transcribable into a language that is insufficient to convey its complexities (ie it is english that is lacking not the model) How can you be sure that you have accurately transcribed something into mathematics if you cannot visualize it in the first place? If you can visualize something then you can describe it in language. I do however agree that certain subjects are difficult to adequately describe in language.QuoteEinsteins theory on gravity only goes so far Barring the quantum level it is amazingly accurate and few feel it has many holes.I did not say it was not accurate. I only said “Einstein’s theory on gravity only goes so far”. This is true, as you say it does not include quantum gravity.QuoteIn a nutshell.... How does it do on the precession of mercury?Fine thanks. All I have attempted to do is explain what I believe to be, further detail or consequences of Relativity. I am in no way denying the underlying truths contained thereinQuoteI believe the conditions I have mentioned do represent the ground state of the Universe. The Universe will ultimately attempt to reach its ground state and regardless of what we think it is doing or should do, it will do what it has to do. Understand now - but again this is not what is observed or calculated.This is true but I am sometimes less than convinced that what we think we are observing is necessarily being interpreted in the correct manner. The cosmological red-shift for example. Our knowledge is still very limited and I suspect that the Universe will ultimately find a way of reaching its true ground state. It still has many billions of years to go.

Without quotes cos it would get too long1. Which law of physics are you talking about? Thermodynamics, as mentioned earlier in this thread.2. It has to mine. A box of two gases in the intergalactic void will mix and will almost certainly not unmix. True 3. The explanation of the box of gases will not include gravity False. If the same experiment is done in a high gravitational potential more energy will be required to mix the gases. This may manifest itself as the gasses mixing at a different speed. Even if they mix at the same speed in their own local time frames they will be seen to mix at different speeds according to a distant observer. The experiment will show that gravity does play a part and that part defines the arrow of time.4. Sorry - but Maths isn't just helpful, it is essential. English is merely useful and maths is necessary when it comes to physical laws. Much of modern physics is not visualizable - everything from complex numbers, thru length contraction, to wave/particle duality are completely non-instintive and non-realizable in the human brain; we overcome this using maths. Now matter how many wordy handwaving popularisations of science are produced the crux of the matter is that science in the last century is mathematical first and heuristic later.I agree with most of what you say but still have difficulty in imagining how you can mathematically model what you can't visualise in some manner.5. Because the mathematical model is tight, self-referential, constrained, and doesn't contradict itself. You will have seen me defending SR on many occasions from accusations that "something is wrong within it", "it doesn't work out", "this thought-experiment shows it to be false" etc. Because SR is so constrained - it has only two axiomata and the model is simple - the only way to show that SR is incorrect is experimentally, which will show one of the two axiomata to be false. SR cannot be wrong in any other way. GR is much more complicated and the maths is so much more involved that it is possible for faults to be found and improvements made. Some of the extreme parts of QM rely on maths that is sometimes quite unusual and thus the theory holds only as long as the maths does - at present the experimental proof shows that the maths is correct. And at the far end of the spectrum String Theory has created maths to further the search for physical laws.I agree6. So it doesn't. ? GR does not concern itself with underlying truths - that is the problem of philosophy and pop science, it concerns itself with modelling and predicting.But you mentioned the precession of mercury which is a SR affect and it was therefore SR and not GR that I commented upon.7. But your knowledge of the means of interpretation is so biased by the fact that you cannot do the actual sums and are relying on gut instinct which does not work.

Mike - sorry but you are out of your depth. you aren't even getting the bits about grav potential correct and you are failing to understand the relative bit of relativity. you just need to go and read up on this rather than wading blindly on.Physics is awesome and will provide endless entertainment for the enlightened mind - but what you are doing is not physics.