0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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
Quote from: timey on 01/03/2016 17:27:13P.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/Michelston–Morley_experimentI think you missed the point, imagine a 30 cm length, imagine light bouncing back and forth between A and B of the length, lets say we observe a frequency of 10 passing B, Now let us imagine we move the clock and we now measure the frequency passing B as 5. Time slowed down to half the rate. NO....... speed slowed down to half the rate, the length of 30cm is still the same and never alters, it is constant. distance travelled = distance travelled in either experiment, rate/d is not equal to rate/d in either experiment.
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/Michelston–Morley_experiment
Yes box - I get the point.What you are doing is keeping distance and the rate of time constant, at the expense of the speed of light now being variable.What I am doing is keeping the speed of light and distance as constants, and rendering the rate of time as variable,
Yes box - I'm having a perfect cinematic recollection of events... We've been here before. Yes I agree that anything in time after zero is history - but... in an effort to record sequential events or predict future events, that approach to viewing time is next to bloody useless.I see you are no closer to understanding that the frequency of the cycles of a cessium atom is subject to change when exposed to changes in the gravitational field.That these changes in the frequency of the cycles of a cessium atom exposed to changes in the gravitational field are known as time dilation, (although, in the case of this side of the 'rate of time' phenomenon, it should really be called time contraction), and are indeed proven...forming the basis of the GPS system... So... the rate of time is indeed a variable.I'm just suggesting that the rate of time is also variable, in an 'almost' reverse symmetry, for locations of 'space' within changes in the gravitational field, and that lights observed reduction of frequency in a reducing gravitational field, being as light is massless, is reflective of this notion.I don't know where your notion of extraction fits in. Sorry.
There have been 3 or four experiments that have validated the Lorentz contraction but the one I like best is the Heavy ion experiment.From Wikipedia under: [Lorentz Contraction]"Heavy ions that are spherical when at rest should assume the form of "pancakes" or flat discs when traveling nearly at the speed of light. And in fact, the results obtained from particle collisions can only be explained when the increased nucleon density due to length contraction is considered."My personal comments follow:As the heavy ion reaches these near light speeds, it's frontal area compacts as it's length contracts leading to the observed increased nucleon density. These observations provide sufficient evidence that Length Contraction is a reality and not just a time dependent function of this phenomenon. I would recommend everyone involved in this thread check out the full explanation prepared for everyone at Wikipedia.regards...........................Ethos
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...
The problem is , anybody who knows anything about force, pressure and speed, knows very well it is impossible for an objects molecular shape length to contract due to motion.
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2016 08:16:35 The problem is , anybody who knows anything about force, pressure and speed, knows very well it is impossible for an objects molecular shape length to contract due to motion.Ignoring the experimental results given here and maintaining your own biased view of reality proves one thing to me. And this would be that you're really not interested in the scientific method and therefore, content to pick and choose your facts based only on those things which please your personal sensibilities. Until you learn to take these professional experiments, preformed by experts BTW, into consideration and allow that information to be part of your equation, your quest to learn about physics will suffer greatly. But I wish you the best Mr. Box, keep digging into these questions and you may find something new.regards................................Ethos
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2016 08:16:35 The problem is , anybody who knows anything about force, pressure and speed, knows very well it is impossible for an objects molecular shape length to contract due to motion.Whereas anyone who has ever used a rubber band or stirred paint, knows that it is an everyday occurrence.
My scientific method involves physical experiment,
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2016 13:52:15My scientific method involves physical experiment, Would you like us to send you a new BOX of crayons, for your experiments that is................................?
Quote from: timey on 01/03/2016 18:23:12I 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.It's reflected 400 times so total path length is 1600km. Quote from: timey on 01/03/2016 18:23:12What 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... Where did you get this from?The only delay I've seen quoted is the time between detection at Livingston, LA and Hanford, WA, This was about 7ms - close to your figure. That delay depends on the angle of incidence of the wave.
Quotethe origin of the wavesThis 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] CalculationThe 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 SourceIt 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.pdfThis paper is expected to appear soon (for now it is just the diagram above): https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0122/P1500227/006/placeholder.pdf
the origin of the waves
When you measure a cesium atom in elevation, are you measuring what time is doing in the space the atom is located, or are you just measuring what time is doing for the atom located in that space?
Can someone help me here?Bearing in mind that the light measuring the gravity waves revolves around the tubes 400 times before being measured for interference patterns... If one were to consider that the light in the tubes of the gravity wave experiment was displaying interference patterns due to a 'shorter' journey 'time', rather than a 'shorter' tube... how many ms would the speed of light have been exceeded by when travelling the 'now considered' un-contracted distance of the tubes?
The tubes are supposed to have contracted by a distance. I'm pretty sure that the figure I am looking for can be obtained by:adding this tiny distance to the distance of 1600km,
Dear oh me Colin!Yes - but the gravity wave passed the experiment site at the speed of light.... It just touched upon 'one' of those 400 revolutions per tube of that light's journey very briefly indeed... No?
Would you happen to know the exact distance between the 2 experiment sites Colin? Evan said it was around 5000km, but I could use knowing the precise measurement. I'd be most grateful, as researching on this poxy phone is really starting to do my head in...
You do make a good point though!Dependent on where the light is being measured - if the 400 revolutions, before the light is measured, is inclusive of a journey involving both tubes - then the final figure that I am seeking as a result of the equation that I described above, would require being divided by 2 in order to be correct.
...and to say so, the straight line distance consideration between the experiments, is in fact just a side issue that I'm interested in. It has no bearing on the result of the proposed calculation,
There was a 6.7ms delay between experiments.16.68 minus 6.7 = 9.989.98 minus earth's gravity 9.807 = 0.173
1600km plus tiny distance of contraction, divided by speed of light = (?) (my phone calculator cannot handle this equation)1600km divided by speed of light = 5.34ms(?) minus 5.34ms = (?) multiplied by 400 = (?)
The gravity wave did not travel in a circle.
But considering I have stated this as being just a side issue of interest to me, why is it that you think this is the factor worthy of your consideration?
Sorry if my response is unwanted, it was just background interest!
My theory renders length, or distance, as constant.
My theory renders length, or distance, as constant. Albeit for the fact of bodies of mass rolling around, within their constant lengths, in this constant distance, changing the parameters of gravitational field and time aspects of these constant distances as they progress upon their gravitational trajectories. ie: the universe is not expanding...but has been slowly contracting in its spacial dimensions since the moment of inflation, due to a sea of individual particle masses clumping together. ie: a cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle within the black hole phenomenon.
Yes - and how they measured this contraction in length is by using the phenomenon of light, and recording the interference patterns in the light caused by the disturbance to the 'length'...And... I'm saying that a gravitational increase caused by the gravity wave will cause that light to blueshift. That blueshift is indicative of a 'faster' rate of time. This will cause the lights progression, at the speed of light, during the duration of the gravity wave hit, to be making a 'shorter' journey 'time'.If one does not realise that a blueshift causes an increase in time, then one would 'have' to conclude that the tube itself has contracted, by the exact amount that the journey time was shorter!!!My related calculation gives a premiss for calculating by how much the time contracted, by using the data of by how much the tubes are 'supposed' to have contracted.The logic is simple!
I'm open to your concept timey, but there are a few details that we need to straighten out first. Allow me to first establish that; "I would be extremely pleased" to see this model verified because I favor the cyclical model. But proceeding via the scientific method, we first need to try and disprove it.1. I don't think we should totally dismiss the malleability of matter. (a) Even in our frame of reference, matter is composed of mostly ru space and is very compressible. (b) Can we then assume to illuminate other forces such as velocity and gravitational influence to also effect the structural geometry of material objects?2. I think it more reasonable, in view and in support of your theory, to suggest that there may exist an equilibrium between time and structural geometry taking place. And if that be the case, how in the world could we ever determine which competing entity is the greater influence?Please understand timey, I'm asking these questions in hopes that answers might be forth coming and in no way am I attacking your theory. In view of my fondness for the cyclical model, I would be very pleased if your model were proved correct.
The theory is best viewed in relation to Hubble and the light cone.
There is no length contraction for this very simple reason, the length is always constant on a graph or reading. [attachment=21120]
Quote from: Thebox on 05/03/2016 16:06:51There is no length contraction for this very simple reason, the length is always constant on a graph or reading. [attachment=21120]I doubt if the bed or patient are travelling fast enough for it to be apparent.
I think you missed the point there Jeff, any computer readout is normally defined between a set distance of points, in the example the set length is the computer screen. The length is constant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZNrWolSoBo