0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Is distance an absolute invariant

Space Flow: you say that between galaxies in the voids that there are still gravitational forces at play, although very weak, and that space time is subsequently flattened. A flattening of space time is suggestive that without the effect of curvature, that a distance between 2 gravitational forces will be a 'shorter' distance than if any significant curvature were apparent. The time dilation aspects of faster time, (relative to earth), in these voids, also denotes that a unit of distance will be covered by a constant velocity more quickly.

Yet... This flattened space time is being stretched, and the fact of redshift is given as proof of such.

Can you calculate gravitational redshift?

Alan: you have said: GR simplifies to SR in the case of no acceleration, or no gravitational field... That there is a gravitational field in the voids, and that where these gravitational fields cross points, as such, that they cancel each other out. This being the premiss for wormholes presumably?

You have also given an example of some basic algebra that my level of study assumes that I already know. I'd like to understand how to use: GM/r2 ... my interpretation is that G is the gravitational constant, M is mass, but why a big one in this instance please?

r2 is radius squared, but is this a straight line radius distance or a circular radius distance... please? Any help appreciated!

"Although the intention of this thread is to remain within the remit of established physics""Ok, I am now asking things in certain ways because I intend that you think about the matter from that perspective".

Are the Lorentz transformations used to calculate the velocity related slowing of time (relative to a 'stationary' observer), and contracting of distance experienced by the moving reference frame?Answer;Yes the Lorentz transformations are what is used to find the applicable gamma factor to any observed reference frame that is moving relative to the observer. The gamma factor gives you the time dilation and length contraction observed in a relatively moving reference frame.The second part of this question does not make sense (contracting of distance experienced by the moving reference frame?). A reference frame that is observed to be moving is observed to undergo time dilation and length contraction.This is from the point of view of the observer, so saying that an observed moving reference frame in any way experiences such things is wrong. That same reference frame has every right under SR to consider itself stationary and it is the other reference frame undergoing the effects of observed speed.One's own reference frame can not experience these effects.Are the Lorentz transformations used to calculate the stretching of the fabric of space?If you mean due to Universal expansion, not as a general rule, as the observed speeds we see so far do not warrant that level of difficulty. But to answer the question if they describe the situation more accurately than not using them then YES. To clarify that some more, if we were observing expansion at relativistic speeds then we would be forced to take Gamma into consideration. As it is at the moment with the speeds we are dealing with the extra level of computing difficulty is not justified by the extreme fractional difference it would make in our answers.Are the Lorentz transformations used to calculate gravitational time dilation? If not, what is?Answer; YesAnd... are the Lorentz transformations used to calculate an observed length contraction?Answer; Yes

dTo explain: my interest is in 'distance' rather than length. Distance being the space between things, and length being the distance occupied by matter. Clearly 'a' distance between things that are moving at different speeds relative to each other is variable. But... are we saying that distance itself, empty space between 'things', can be stretched or contracted?

This, I imagined was going to a more closed up V shape...Then Alan dropped the subtle hint that it is the length of the arms of the V that are supposed to be affected, which is when the experiment became vertically oriented in my mind.

It does make more sense that they are horizontal from the point of view of a more consistent gravitational field though.

Colin. No problem, in fact I think my post was just a symptom of my frustration at my inability to find anyone willing to undertake a 'progressive' discussion with me regarding GR.When taking on board the difference between a length and a distance, by the remit of SR, a length in a reference frame that is accelerated relative to another, will appear contracted to the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame. The observer on the length in the accelerated reference frame does not experience a contraction of his crafts length, and will instead experience a contracting of the distance he is travelling relative to what the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame observes of the lengths accelerated reference frames journey.Finally, the lengths accelerated reference frames rate of time is running slower relative to the non accelerated frames rate of time. Dispensing with the SR considerations for a moment, the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame is also viewing the length and its accelerated reference frame travelling through changes in the gravitational field. These changes in the gravitational field also elicit changes in the rate of time that a clock runs at. We have tested this theory by placing clocks in all manner of elevation, and measuring by how much faster they run relative to a clock at ground level. (NIST atomic clock ground level relativity experiments 2010)... Even back in Einstein's day, it was known that a pendulum has a shorter swing up a mountain, than in the valley.***Therefore, and based upon this sole observation I do believe, it has been decided that a gravity field slows time down. And that the rate of time runs faster out in space.***So the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame, observing the accelerated reference frame is also viewing the length in the accelerated reference frame travelling through a gravitationally induced change, or changes, in the rate of time of its locality.According to GR, if light travels at the speed of light across units of distance experiencing local changes in the gravitational field, and therefore is experiencing changes in the rate of time over these units of distance experiencing changes in the gravitational field, and GR does not take these local changes in the rate of time into account, then distance does indeed become a variable. It stretches!Clearly the GR field equation's do also include these changes in the local rate of time into the mix to account for this stretching of distance that would otherwise occur.Space Flow: I notice that you have a notion that these distortions 'may' be a factor of our viewpoint. I agree! If you think about rates of time that are occurring faster, or slower, relative to our own, it could be that we quite simply are observing a lesser percentage of the light from the local of that reference frame as a result.

.............. We have tested this theory by placing clocks in all manner of elevation, and measuring by how much faster they run relative to a clock at ground level. (NIST atomic clock ground level relativity experiments 2010)...

Even back in Einstein's day, it was known that a pendulum has a shorter swing up a mountain, than in the valley.

......Therefore, ... and based upon this sole observation I do believe, it has been decided that a gravity field slows time down. And that the rate of time runs faster out in space

Space Flow: I notice that you have a notion that these distortions 'may' be a factor of our viewpoint. I agree! If you think about rates of time that are occurring faster, or slower, relative to our own, it could be that we quite simply are observing a lesser percentage of the light from the local of that reference frame as a result.

Well Space Flow, it would seem that your theory and mine are at complete and total cross purposes with each other (chuckle). No matter... I consider alternative physics theories as synonymous to a lottery ticket, that doesn't cost money, is much more entertaining, but shares the same probability issues in being a winner!One observation, my theory is a damn site easier to disprove than yours...lol!