4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?

  • 230 Replies
  • 10559 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #100 on: 18/02/2016 23:26:26 »
Removing light (massless) from the remit of gravitational potential. 

Incomplete sentence, but I think it is intended to contain something significant! Would you care to explain? We know that light is indeed affected by gravity.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #101 on: 19/02/2016 00:08:43 »
This idea works on the basis that relativistic mass is redundant.  That light 'gets' it's energy from the gravitational field.

Yes of course we have observed that gravity affects light, but is it gravity affecting the light, or is there a possibility that it is gravity related time considerations, and changes in there-of, as massive bodies of mass come into alignment, that are causing these effects?  (As far as I can make out, there have been no laboratory tests that have bent light with gravity... Nearest I've found is this :
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2009/07/20/testing-relativity-in-the-laboratory/
...and...I don't think gravity is involved)

Under the vastly wider scale of an inverted time dilation, observations of gravity lensing and star displacement would occur... just as we observe.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #102 on: 19/02/2016 00:34:31 »
Point of fact, try this.

Draw a distance line on the horizontal, and graph slower, and faster rates of time (relative to earth) on a vertical, with slower rates (relative to earth) above the horizontal, and faster rates (relative to earth) below the horizontal.

Run your 'speed of light' vector along the horizontal into rates of time that are progressively slower until midpoint and then are progressively faster to end of distance.

This will create a parabola.

Now run a 'speed of light' vector along the horizontal, with time getting just a tinsy, tiny bit faster progressively, and then slower progressively, but just around the midpoint of the distance... and you will see a slightly inverted parabola.

This inverted parabola can be considered synonymous to gravitational lensing.
« Last Edit: 19/02/2016 01:04:47 by timey »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #103 on: 19/02/2016 12:08:16 »
That light 'gets' it's energy from the gravitational field.
This sentence surely doesn't make sense? A photon is emitted from an electron transition which determines the photon energy. The  universal favorite isthe 21 cm hydrogen line which arises from a spin-spin interaction and is therefore gravity-invariant. We know that photons arising from sources with a strong gravitational field are red-shifted, i.e. appear to have less energy than expected from the quantum transition, so it ain't gaining energy from the gravitational field! 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #104 on: 19/02/2016 13:15:27 »
Ok, I agree that my explanation is woolly and needs to be clarified, but first...

Can we agree that the Pound Rebka experiment can possibly be considered indicative that any redshift observations must be being observed at the point of weakest gravity between the light source and the receptor mass?

That if we observe a redshift of light from ground to bell tower on earth, that a hypothetical observer standing on a distant light source would also observe a redshift phenomenon as the light leaves the gravitational field of the light source?

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2024
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #105 on: 19/02/2016 23:44:02 »
Can we agree that the Pound Rebka experiment can possibly be considered indicative that any redshift observations must be being observed at the point of weakest gravity between the light source and the receptor mass?
....point of weaker gravity??
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #106 on: 20/02/2016 00:14:38 »
Between the mass of another light source and the mass of our solar system... the gravitational field will reduce by the inverse square law until such point - this being dependent on the mass size of the other light source - that the gravitational field will start to increase by the squaring law (?), as the gravitational influence of our solar system takes effect.

The point of weakest gravitational field is at this point in the distance between the masses... the point just before the gravitational effects of our solar system start outweighing the reduction in gravitational force of the mass of the other light source.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #107 on: 20/02/2016 01:41:39 »
Redshift is the difference between spectra generated at a distant body and the same spectrum generated locally. Conventional relativity says that every observer thinks is clock (or spectrum in this instance) is correct and the other one is wrong.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #108 on: 20/02/2016 05:41:36 »
Yes... and this is a direct consequence of GR lacking an absolute reference frame in which to place these clocks, (or spectrum in this case).

The fact of GR lacking an absolute reference frame is a direct consequence of the notion that distance and length are variables.

Under the remit the 'top of the bell tower to ground' part of the Pound Rebka experiment, the light is shown to blueshift.  This indicates that it 'is' possible to chart time, or spectra, to a gravity field.  And of course, you don't have to remind me that this is exactly what they do do, and that this 'is' a working theory.

However... and just on the basis that sooo many theoretical physicists are moaning about the situation, (chuckle)... for reasons too numerous to list... it becomes interesting to consider another perspective.

The amount by which time gets faster in space, and the distance by which light travels a parallax distance at the speed of light do not match up.  It is the extra length in the wavelength that stretches this calculation of distance, in order to match a parallax distance. (I do believe?)

ITT simply states that it is the frequency of the light that is indicative of slower rates of time, in and across space, and that the extra length in a wavelength is time related.

Distances do not dilate.

And in reverse, an increase in gravity field, caused by a gravity wave, will blueshift the light that is measuring these 4km tubes.  And that contrary to accepted physics, this will cause a 'shorter' journey time, giving the impression, under current physics remit, and the 'calculation'... of time running slower for a blueshift, that the poles themselves have contracted...

My notion places 'Both Clocks' as being 'right'... and just uses Earth's frame of reference as the 'key'... as in a key to a chartable map.
« Last Edit: 20/02/2016 07:56:30 by timey »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #109 on: 20/02/2016 14:15:45 »


Distances do not dilate.

If there is one thing about physics I believe we can justifiably say, it is this: "When speaking about absolutes, I'm absolutely sure there are no absolutes." Reality is like Jello, No absolute solidity, no absolute time, no absolute length, no absolute position in space. The one possible exception being the speed of light in a vacuum. And even this standard might find argument amongst a few.

My two cents......................

« Last Edit: 20/02/2016 14:40:52 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #110 on: 20/02/2016 17:46:34 »
Yes... and this is a direct consequence of GR lacking an absolute reference frame in which to place these clocks, (or spectrum in this case).
Not a question of GR "lacking" an aboslute reference frame, but recognising that there isn't one.

Worth checking your understanding of parallax distance, since you use the term quite a lot. It is just distance, inferred by parallax rather than direct measurement because we don't have a long enough tape measure to do it directly. So in principle you should be able to delete the word parallax without altering the underlying physics and overlying arithmetic of your argument. Unless you are claiming that your method reveals errors in the parallax method due to some other effect than the assumption of distance to the "fixed" star.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #111 on: 20/02/2016 18:40:29 »
Ok - I did explain my understanding of a parallax distance earlier this thread, and will do so again to make the distinction between a distance, ie: 4km of tube, and a parallax distance.

A parallax distance is determined by method of angle.  By determining 'how' the star is progressing across our vision in respect to other light sources, both closer to us than the star in question, and further from us than the star in question, in distance.  This in conjunction with the luminosity of the star can determine the mass size of the star.

My distinction between a distance, and a parallax distance is born of the premiss of my diagram, which is recalculating the premiss of a parallax distance, determined by method of 'angle'.  My diagram will not work for a distance that is not determined by 'angle'.  It is the premiss of the parallax distance, the angles, the luminosity, and resulting mass size, that determines the parameters of measurement with which my diagram can then calculate.

My diagram is not stating that there is an error in the method of parallax, just an error of interpretation.

Again - can we agree that by means of the Pound Rebka experiment, that in viewing a redshifted light source, that we must indeed be viewing light at the point of weakest gravity field between the body of mass of the light source and the mass of our solar system...  The light will, by the remit of accepted physics, be blue shifted all the way back to the star, from our view of reference, from that point of weakest gravity field ... ?

It also occurs... that GR only explains the perihelion of mercury to a better degree of accuracy than Newtonian mechanics.  GR does not describe the scenario to an absolute exactness.

And... I am quite certain that it was not Einstein's intention that GR would be 'forced' to accept that it could not describe an absolute reference frame.  I personally believe it was the fact of this that gave him a headache over GR for the remainder of his life!

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #112 on: 21/02/2016 00:40:51 »
Again - can we agree that by means of the Pound Rebka experiment, that in viewing a redshifted light source, that we must indeed be viewing light at the point of weakest gravity field between the body of mass of the light source and the mass of our solar system... 
No. We have no idea where the minimum is and it certainly isn't on the surface of the earth.

GR can't describe an absolute reference frame because there isn't one, and its nonexistence is the basis of GR.
« Last Edit: 21/02/2016 01:16:27 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #113 on: 21/02/2016 01:00:35 »
GR can't describe an absolute reference frame because there isn't one, and its nonexistence is the basis of GR.
Exactly Alan, and why people don't seem to grasp this is a mystery to me? It's precisely why it's called; "General Relativity" focusing attention upon the word: "Relativity". All measurements of; Space, time, mass, ect. are not absolutes, but are "relative" to each and every other factor within those calculations.
« Last Edit: 21/02/2016 01:27:11 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #114 on: 21/02/2016 02:29:52 »
No. We have no idea where the minimum is and it certainly isn't on the surface of the earth.

GR can't describe an absolute reference frame because there isn't one, and its nonexistence is the basis of GR.

I did not suggest that the weakest gravity was on earth.  (You say there is no idea where the weakest point of gravity between 2 bodies of mass is?)

Now with regards to the Pound Rebka experiment, if you are going to be telling me that light is observed from the top of the tower to 'redshift' towards earth, from the perspective of the top of the tower, I will hang up my coat and retire.

Far as I am aware, the experiment showed that:  light moving from bottom to top of tower is redshifted from both perspectives, and light moving from top to bottom of tower is blue shifted from both perspectives.

Is this correct?

And... be that as it may, concerning GR, I can see the possibility of there actually being an absolute reference frame... and the benefits of having one.
Again - Inverted Time Theory is not synonymous to GR.  GR is only mentioned with regards to it being best current working theory, and because I was indeed invited to take someone's hand, earlier this thread, and guide them through GR, with respect to my ITT notion.

I am well aware GR has no absolute reference frame, and all the disadvantages there-of... and that it does not have an absolute reference frame because distance and length are variable.  (Let's not bring the fabric of space stretching faster than the speed of light into the matter.)

P.S.  Ethos, you are aware that GR has problems describing our universe?  That GR is a theory of gravity, and that gravity has yet to be linked to quantum, or the Maxwell equations?  Because if not, then please go read "The Trouble With Physics" Lee Smolin, before you make further comment here.
« Last Edit: 21/02/2016 03:39:42 by timey »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #115 on: 21/02/2016 03:02:07 »


P.S.  Ethos, you are aware that GR has problems describing our universe?  That GR is a theory of gravity, and that gravity has yet to be linked to quantum, or the Maxwell equations?  Because if not, then please go read "The Trouble With Physics" Lee Smolin, before you make further comment here.
With all due respect, I'll make comments here when I think there is good reason to.....................But appreciate the suggestion nevertheless.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #116 on: 21/02/2016 10:03:44 »
Far as I am aware, the experiment showed that:  light moving from bottom to top of tower is redshifted from both perspectives, and light moving from top to bottom of tower is blue shifted from both perspectives.
No, it showed that the gravitational blueshift of a "falling" photon could be measured by matching it with the Doppler shift of a moving Mossbauer target.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #117 on: 21/02/2016 10:22:29 »
Far as I am aware, the experiment showed that:  light moving from bottom to top of tower is redshifted from both perspectives, and light moving from top to bottom of tower is blue shifted from both perspectives.
No, it showed that the gravitational blueshift of a "falling" photon could be measured by matching it with the Doppler shift of a moving Mossbauer target.


I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but like Ethos stated I will post anywhere when I feel like it appropriate, I have the same forums rights as you all. I am sure this forum would not want to be discriminate which is a form of racism.

Alan I do not think you understood what Timey was saying, again maybe a syntactic ambiguity problem .

Imagine two stars  , A and B

Imagine A and B start of adjoined.   


AB

Imagine B sets out on a journey and relative to A and B neither knows who is moving.

A←→B

B travels way from A at the near speed of light  v=<c


relative to B , it is A that is travelling away at the near speed of light


A, observes B to redshift by the expansion of length  (doppler effect)


B, observes A to redshift by the expansion of the length. (doppler effect)


This is what timey was saying/asking.

You replied

''No, it showed that the gravitational blueshift of a "falling" photon could be measured by matching it with the Doppler shift of a moving Mossbauer target.''


This also applies, both affects are observed relative to perspective.   While A observes the light from A to B redshift , A also observes the light from B to A to blueshift. 


You have to imagine yourself in two different position perspectives simultaneously to understand both perspectives.












*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #118 on: 21/02/2016 12:06:09 »
Far as I am aware, the experiment showed that:  light moving from bottom to top of tower is redshifted from both perspectives, and light moving from top to bottom of tower is blue shifted from both perspectives.
No, it showed that the gravitational blueshift of a "falling" photon could be measured by matching it with the Doppler shift of a moving Mossbauer target.

My point being that there is nothing 'relative' going on between the 2 positions, top of tower, and bottom of tower, perspectives.  Blue shifted means approaching a gravity field, and redshifted means departing a gravity field...from both perspectives.

Ok, let's examine the idea of a photon 'falling' to earth.  A photon falling to earth is what we observe when we observe star light.  When this light comes within the gravitational field of Earth, that photon, having been redshifted away from the stars gravitational field, will blueshift as it 'falls' towards Earth.

Presumably it then is possible to subtract the blue shifted effect from the redshifted effect that we observe, to arrive at the correct redshift associated with that star. (?)

But 'where' are we observing this redshifted light?  Are we observing the redshifted light as a direct result of light being emitted from this star, from the position of the star?  Or are we observing the light as a direct result of the light having travelled to the point of distance whereas the light has become as redshifted as to the extent that the weakest point of gravity field has rendered it?
« Last Edit: 21/02/2016 12:08:21 by timey »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #119 on: 21/02/2016 12:18:52 »
We are observing everything that happened to the photon from birth to absorption.

The business about the "weakest point of gravity" is irrelevant. We are seeing the integrated effect of all the gravitational fields and doppler shifts en route. Whilst we can compute the minimum gravitational potential and gradient between two fixed masses, there's all sorts of stuff moving about in the real universe. We know an apple is the result of 365 days of weather operating on one tree, but there's no way you can calculate the hottest or wettest day from the weight of the apple!     
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #120 on: 21/02/2016 12:56:16 »
Ok then - let's have a look at our closest light source, the sun, for simplicity.

The picture depicted in the link below states itself as vastly out of scale, but it does not state itself as geometrically incorrect.  Is it?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

The light will redshift away from the sun, but when it comes under the influence of Earth's gravitational field,  it will start to blueshift...

And... as both bodies of mass are moving relative to each other, we know that the position in which we view the suns light, is not the position that the sun is in at the precise moment that we are viewing the light we view.  But if we were able to view the light of the sun instantaneously, would we observe a blue shifted streak from the position that we observe the light of the sun to be in, streaking across the sky to the position that the sun is now in?
(given that it all wasn't so damn blindingly bright that is...(chuckle) )

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 573
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #121 on: 21/02/2016 13:15:07 »
If you look at the sun, it has a spacetime well, with space-tim most contracted at the bottom of the well in the core of the sun. If you look in terms pressure, the material in the core of the sun is packed the most; lowest distances, consistent with contracted distance in the space-time well. However, time goes in the opposite direction, since the core has the fastest frequencies, while time in space-time runs slowest in the core. There are two layer of time.

The reason is gravity is an acceleration, which has the units of d/t/t (one part distance and two parts time) while space time is only d-t (one part distance and one part time). There is time missing from space-time, relative to acceleration.The extra time is connected to pressure and allows frequencies get faster instead of slower.

One needs to think in terms of gravity as two layers, with space-time only one of those two layers. The other layer is connected pressure. Distance in space-time is not invariant as everyone has pointed out. But distance in the extra layer of time, connected to pressure, is invariant and defines specific phases of matter. Specific phases of matter have specific distances, which are the same in all references. In SR, since this uses velocity; d/t, space-time is fully defined. The extra layer of time is not impacted so materials do not change. The younger twin in the paradox does not experience extreme pressure.

If we add the pressure variable, on top of space-time, we can see what appears to be variation in invariant distances, without any phase change.  We can see the hydrogen spectra, red shift, such that higher energy levels behave like lower energy levels, but in reality, the hydrogen atom is behaving in an invariant way, in the distant object. The standard hydrogen atom is how we infer motion, since we know this has to remain invariant and any chance is due to SR.

The answer is distance is variant with respect to space-time, but invariant with respect to the extra time (acceleration) connected to pressure. All the force of nature can exert pressure and be impacted by pressure. The extra time connected to pressure is how all the forces/accelerations are integrated, to define a unique summations of forces; characteristic phase.
« Last Edit: 21/02/2016 13:23:20 by puppypower »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #122 on: 21/02/2016 15:34:20 »
we know that the position in which we view the suns light, is not the position that the sun is in at the precise moment that we are viewing the light we view.  But if we were able to view the light of the sun instantaneously, would we observe a blue shifted streak from the position that we observe the light of the sun to be in, streaking across the sky to the position that the sun is now in?
(given that it all wasn't so damn blindingly bright that is...(chuckle) )

If you could observe the sun "instantaneously" c would be infinite by definition and no relativistic corrections would apply to anything.  And any photon leaving the sun will be red shifted from the point of view of an observer in a lower gravitational field, as shown experimentally by Pound & Rebka.

You don't need the sun or any other celestial body to play with red and blue shifts. As you have pointed out, the 57Fe mossbauer photon is entirely adequate for measurements in a terrestrial laboratory.   
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #123 on: 21/02/2016 15:57:53 »
Ok then - let's have a look at our closest light source, the sun, for simplicity.

The picture depicted in the link below states itself as vastly out of scale, but it does not state itself as geometrically incorrect.  Is it?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

The light will redshift away from the sun, but when it comes under the influence of Earth's gravitational field,  it will start to blueshift...

And... as both bodies of mass are moving relative to each other, we know that the position in which we view the suns light, is not the position that the sun is in at the precise moment that we are viewing the light we view.  But if we were able to view the light of the sun instantaneously, would we observe a blue shifted streak from the position that we observe the light of the sun to be in, streaking across the sky to the position that the sun is now in?
(given that it all wasn't so damn blindingly bright that is...(chuckle) )
OH ....how nasa observe the sun in different spectrum's changing the light when it hasn't changed

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4054
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #124 on: 21/02/2016 16:13:48 »
Take a mass m that is moving at 99.999...% the speed of light at constant velocity. Now from the perspective of the frame of reference of mass m,which can be considered inertial, we can launch a smaller mass so that from m's perspective it moves at 99.999...% the speed of light at a constant velocity. In theory we can repeat this procedure from each successive frame of reference. This is an infinite sequence. At some point we have to reach an absolute boundary past which it is now impossible to go. Like absolute zero, mass moving at c or being absolutely stationary.

This is the point at which relativity meets quantum mechanics.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #125 on: 21/02/2016 16:46:30 »
Thank you Puppypower for your dialogue. 

I think it worth pointing out though, that the purpose of 'this' discussion, at present juncture, is to dissect 'observation' of redshift, via experimental evidence, with respect to parallax method.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #126 on: 21/02/2016 16:49:57 »
If you could observe the sun "instantaneously" c would be infinite by definition and no relativistic corrections would apply to anything.  And any photon leaving the sun will be red shifted from the point of view of an observer in a lower gravitational field, as shown experimentally by Pound & Rebka.

You don't need the sun or any other celestial body to play with red and blue shifts. As you have pointed out, the 57Fe mossbauer photon is entirely adequate for measurements in a terrestrial laboratory.   

Ok - yes, exactly!  The speed of light is not instantaneous.  And... not only do we experience a time episode between when the light was emitted, and when we view it, but also that 'the' time considerations between the light source and us, are also changing, with changes in the gravity field.

However, the Pound Rebka experiment suggests that it would not matter 'where' an observer situated himself within the gravitational field between the light source and earth.  Where the gravitational field becomes progressively weaker, light will redshift, and where the gravitational field becomes progressively stronger light will blueshift.

Can we agree that there is nothing relativistic about this?

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #127 on: 21/02/2016 17:29:07 »
Where the gravitational field becomes progressively weaker, light will redshift, and where the gravitational field becomes progressively stronger light will blueshift.
Isn't that exacty the opposite of what happens? As I understand it, the redshift occurs in the stronger gravitational field, but obviously an observer in that field won't see it because his timebase has also been shifted.

Quote
Can we agree that there is nothing relativistic about this?
Except that the nonrelativistic calculation gives the wrong answer.
« Last Edit: 21/02/2016 17:31:20 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #128 on: 21/02/2016 17:52:36 »
Checked the link again.

Nope.  Light redshifts as it leaves a gravitational field into weaker gravitational field.

Therefore, by definition, it must blueshift as it enters a stronger gravitational field.

And...  The Pound Rebka suggests that there is a definable time base.  That this 'can' be determined by the shift in light.  This concept has been furthered by NIST with their ground level atomic clock experiments.

And...  The non relativistic (Newtonian) calculation is not taking into consideration the changes in the rate of time within the changes in the gravity field...

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #129 on: 21/02/2016 18:06:23 »
Thank you Puppypower for your dialogue. 

I think it worth pointing out though, that the purpose of 'this' discussion, at present juncture, is to dissect 'observation' of redshift, via experimental evidence, with respect to parallax method.
do you mean this?

[attachment=21020]


*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #131 on: 21/02/2016 18:24:54 »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

Yes I drew similar you just cant see the faint lines because of the white background, you need to download the image and view in bitmap.


Added - I got it , it is not the object that swaps sides, it is your nose that swaps sides.

[attachment=21022]

so you have to  have an imaginary point source to be accurate, not triangulate, tri- quadulate
quad
[attachment=21024]

hope this helps







« Last Edit: 21/02/2016 22:22:40 by Thebox »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #132 on: 21/02/2016 22:38:41 »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

If you  move your head really fast left and right to keep in time with the animation in the link, the background moves at the same speed, just an observation note for you.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #133 on: 21/02/2016 23:28:29 »
If you  move your head really fast left and right to keep in time with the animation in the link, the background moves at the same speed, just an observation note for you.

And... it is also possible to totally obscure a full moon with your thumb!
(That's not Cockney rhyming slang btw :) )

Very good evening to you box!

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #134 on: 22/02/2016 00:36:01 »
If you  move your head really fast left and right to keep in time with the animation in the link, the background moves at the same speed, just an observation note for you.

And... it is also possible to totally obscure a full moon with your thumb!
(That's not Cockney rhyming slang btw :) )

Very good evening to you box!

Thanks for the good evening timey ,good evening to you,  appreciated, yes you can obscure the moon with your thumb, perspective view is a strange thing at times.  I have always done that with my thumb and forefinger , hold them about 1 inch apart and look at things at a distance through the gap , turning huge houses into 1 inch houses etc lol.


Thank you for the earlier link that learnt me something new.   


*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #135 on: 24/02/2016 21:31:03 »
Quote
the origin of the waves
This week's show asked about how the direction of the source was determined.

The unfortunate answer is that it was not determined very accurately at all. It is constrained to within a total area of about 600 square degrees, which is a fair swathe of the sky (the Moon occupies about a quarter of a square degree).
[attachment=21031]

Calculation
The time of arrival at the two detectors differed by about 6.7 ms over a distance of around 5000 km.
  • The source could not have been on a straight line between the two detectors, as that would mean that it exceeded the speed of light, which physicists think is impossible.
  • Assuming that the gravitational wave traveled at the speed of light (as predicted by Einstein), you can deduce that the wave originated at a point in the sky which is at a certain angle to the line joining the detectors. This would inscribe a circle in the sky. Due to uncertainties in the measurements, this circle is about 10 times the width of the Moon in the sky.
  • There was additional (phase?) information which they drew on to further limit it to less than a quarter of this candidate circle around the sky


Finding the Source
It was suggested that astronomers could point their telescopes at the source and see a black hole. They certainly tried.
Unfortunately, 600 deg2 is not a small enough region to know where to point a big optical telescope, which typically cover a very small area of the sky, much smaller than the Moon. This event was so distant that it would need long exposures on a large telescope. Radio and gamma ray telescopes have less resolution, so they can cover larger areas of the sky.

Black holes are particularly hard to see - astronomers now have a good idea of the location and mass of the black hole in the center of our galaxy - but only because they have spent the past 15 years observing the paths of about a dozen stars that are in close orbit around it. The black hole itself is practically invisible -  and this one is only 25,000 light years away, not 1,000,000,000 as estimated for this gravitational wave source.

Fortunately, by the time they have 3 or 4 operational gravity wave detectors (in 4 or 5 years), they will be able to narrow down the source to an area in the sky that is perhaps no larger than the Moon. That is still a large area to search, but if the source were the merger of two neutron stars within our own galaxy, that may produce a burst of visible, radio and X-Rays radiation that is easily visible on Earth.

Unfortunately, the merger of two otherwise isolated black holes is unlikely to produce much visible radiation.

This paper shows more details on the analysis: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03840v1.pdf
This paper is expected to appear soon (for now it is just the diagram above): https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0122/P1500227/006/placeholder.pdf

If indeed Einstein was right, and the speed of gravity and the speed of light are equal - then if you look at an increase in a gravity field, caused by a gravity wave, increasing the rate of time...rather than slowing it.  Then the amount by which the gravity wave exceeded the speed of light, if the gravity wave 'was' considered as having travelling in a straight line, would simply indicate by how much the rate of time had increased when the gravity wave hit.  (This should be synonymous with by how much the length of the poles is 'supposed' to have contracted.)

Calculating the angle from which the gravity wave came from, should then be rendered more exact, shouldn't it?
« Last Edit: 25/02/2016 08:39:54 by timey »

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #136 on: 27/02/2016 12:59:16 »
I suppose Stoke might win... and the odds are pretty good, aren't they?  Not that I'm a betting woman - nor overly interested in football!

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #137 on: 28/02/2016 14:23:16 »
I suppose Stoke might win... and the odds are pretty good, aren't they?  Not that I'm a betting woman - nor overly interested in football!

Stoke has a key player, the player always wants to win and tries not to let anything like a defense to even bother him, he always scores in the end from persistence. He has footballing skills, he always thinks that one step more than other players which gives him the edge.
« Last Edit: 28/02/2016 14:27:00 by Thebox »

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #138 on: 28/02/2016 21:14:18 »
Is that so...?  I was actually rooting for the Villa myself, having somehow found my way back to good old familiar Coventry, so it would seem...whereas I know my way on to Birmingham quite well from there.

Box... I notice you also make diagrams!  Did you know that in posting on forums, you retain the ownership rights on intellectual property, such as an idea - particularly if that idea is an idea that is easily distinguishable from other idea's in its genre - but that the copyright on anything you post publicly to the forum becomes the property of the site owners?

Actually it's a little more 'grey' than I'm perhaps portraying, but only because no-one has yet taken such a case to court.  This being, I think, because the general opinion is - that if you wish to retain full copyrights to any artworks, writings, or poetry you create, it would be foolish to post it to a public forum.  If you do in fact actually want it out there on the net, better to create your own page.  Even then your work will not be entirely safe.  My artwork was ripped off from my webpage a few years back for the launch of a new car series, produced by an exceedingly prominent car manufacturer.  I had to write and tell them that I was expecting my free car to be arriving imminently!  They subsequently took it down, much to my disappointment!  (chuckle)

Anyway - I notice box that you are indeed posting your rather interesting diagrams to the forum, so... just thought I'd point these facts out to you!

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #139 on: 28/02/2016 22:24:12 »
Is that so...?  I was actually rooting for the Villa myself, having somehow found my way back to good old familiar Coventry, so it would seem...whereas I know my way on to Birmingham quite well from there.

Box... I notice you also make diagrams!  Did you know that in posting on forums, you retain the ownership rights on intellectual property, such as an idea - particularly if that idea is an idea that is easily distinguishable from other idea's in its genre - but that the copyright on anything you post publicly to the forum becomes the property of the site owners?

Actually it's a little more 'grey' than I'm perhaps portraying, but only because no-one has yet taken such a case to court.  This being, I think, because the general opinion is - that if you wish to retain full copyrights to any artworks, writings, or poetry you create, it would be foolish to post it to a public forum.  If you do in fact actually want it out there on the net, better to create your own page.  Even then your work will not be entirely safe.  My artwork was ripped off from my webpage a few years back for the launch of a new car series, produced by an exceedingly prominent car manufacturer.  I had to write and tell them that I was expecting my free car to be arriving imminently!  They subsequently took it down, much to my disappointment!  (chuckle)

Anyway - I notice box that you are indeed posting your rather interesting diagrams to the forum, so... just thought I'd point these facts out to you!
Well a train journey is only a train journey.

I once worked in Cambridge town high street, I suppose if any one has rights to my diagrams,  I would rather it be them, thank you for the information, but a diagram is only has good as the person who really,really understands it. 
« Last Edit: 28/02/2016 22:30:20 by Thebox »

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #140 on: 28/02/2016 23:44:39 »
Here, here... and as I also am quite happy with that which I do post, we find ourselves in agreement.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #141 on: 29/02/2016 00:55:11 »
Here, here... and as I also am quite happy with that which I do post, we find ourselves in agreement.
yes we do

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #142 on: 01/03/2016 12:19:04 »
I doubt very much that LIGO are using precision atomic clocks to record the 'time' it takes for the light to travel the 4km distance to the end of tube mirrors and back.

I suspect that this 'timing' aspect of the experiment is taken care of by feeding all other relevant data straight into a computer.

Can anyone confirm if this is true?

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2024
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #143 on: 01/03/2016 12:57:36 »
They arn't measuring the time taken for the beam to travel but the interference pattern when the test mass moves.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #144 on: 01/03/2016 14:23:33 »
Exactly...

This discussion is putting forward the notion that there is no mass movement during the gravity wave occurrence. That any disturbance in the light beams is caused by a 'shorter' journey 'time'.  This being caused by an increase in the gravitational field of earth, caused by the gravity wave itself, causing (contrary to accepted physics) an 'increase' in the rate of time for the duration of the gravity wave passing through the locations of the experiments.

This discussion puts forward the notion that it is 'not' the poles that have contracted, and that instead it is the rate of time that has contracted, causing interference patterns.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #145 on: 01/03/2016 15:49:22 »
In reverse, this discussion puts forward the notion that within the Michael Morley experiment and those that followed, that light associated with the arm of the interferometer equipment travelling 'in line motion' experiences a 'further slowing' of time due to 'extra' velocity related time dilation considerations.  The light, travelling at the speed of light, takes a 'longer' amount of time to travel the arm of the interferometer.  Without mathematically taking into consideration the light having travelled in a 'slower' time, it will 'seem' as if the length of the arm has contracted...when in fact it is instead the length of the journey 'time' that has dilated.
« Last Edit: 01/03/2016 15:53:09 by timey »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #146 on: 01/03/2016 17:06:19 »
In reverse, this discussion puts forward the notion that within the Michael Morley experiment and those that followed, that light associated with the arm of the interferometer equipment travelling 'in line motion' experiences a 'further slowing' of time due to 'extra' velocity related time dilation considerations.  The light, travelling at the speed of light, takes a 'longer' amount of time to travel the arm of the interferometer.  Without mathematically taking into consideration the light having travelled in a 'slower' time, it will 'seem' as if the length of the arm has contracted...when in fact it is instead the length of the journey 'time' that has dilated.

Yes the light slows down, the length remains a length. The calibration points , are a constant invariant.   A very simple experiment shows this, fill a ''vacuum'' with a dense medium, time the journey of light, it will show light to slow down, the vacuum length, remains an invariant. I tried to tell this before, computer printouts use two points, all measurement uses two points, that is the point.


The Keating experiment used 2 points,

a......................b

a......................b



the two points are invariant on the readout.

« Last Edit: 01/03/2016 17:14:40 by Thebox »

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #147 on: 01/03/2016 17:27:13 »
With the aid of a proposed weird little twist to the equivalence principle, whereby we state that the speed of light cannot exceed itself via the rate of time of its location, at that location, a slowing of lights time via 'in line motion' is inevitable.

This remembering that in us 'playing' with light on Earth and in space, that this behaviour does not reflect the true behaviour of natural light propagation through space.

This discussion puts forward the notion that time runs progressively slower for locations (not clocks - ie: mass) in diminishing gravity fields between bodies of mass.  That the reduction of frequency in light observed in gravitational shift is indicative of the rate of time for a gravitational field at that location - and the increased wavelength of the light at lower frequency is time related, not distance related.

The benefits of viewing the universe under this remit describe a non expanding, very slowly contracting, closed system, cyclic universe... that finds it beginning and end of cycle within the black hole phenomenon - without adding any unobserved added extras in order to make the system work...

P.S. Box - I am saying, in this case, that the time slows down causing the appearance of a length contraction, not that the light slows down!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2024
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #148 on: 01/03/2016 17:38:07 »
Exactly...

This discussion is putting forward the notion that there is no mass movement during the gravity wave occurrence.
So you are saying that this experiment would work with just lasers and mirrors, but no test mass. Just need someone to do the experiment.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #149 on: 01/03/2016 18:23:12 »
No Colin -  The experiment as is is fine.  What I am suggesting is that it would be very interesting for an experienced mathematician to consider the data of the experiment under this alternate remit.  I do not know how many times the beam of light is revolved around the 4km distance before the interference patterns are measured, therefore I do not understand how much 'distance' the light in the tubes has travelled before detecting from the interference patterns, the distance of one proton as a 'length' contraction.

What I do know is that the speed of the gravity wave measured in a straight line between experiments, exceeded the speed of light by 6.37 ms?... or thereabouts...  If one considered this exceeding the speed of light as the speed of the gravity wave travelling in a quicker rate of time caused by the gravity waves additional gravitational field, then the distance by which the gravity wave experiment tubes is considered shorter, when divided by the distance the light actually travelled in those tubes before being measured, should tally up with the 6.37 or thereabouts ms divided by the distance that the gravity wave travelled between the experiments.

Or something like that anyway, Colin. Remember, I'm new to the maths.