0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Now I understand where you're coming from timey, but this position will need a great deal of experimental verification before it will ever be accepted. As I'm sure you're aware that this view is in total opposition to current theory. I must confess that I have always been drawn toward the cyclical model but have yet to establish a function by which the contraction could be reasonably accounted for. I think this theory merits a lot more attention.
And... I'm saying that a gravitational increase caused by the gravity wave will cause that light to blueshift.
Alan - I'm sorry but your logic does not work!These gravitational shift, and time shift considerations are part and parcel of GR. There is no way that they can state that Einstein and relativity are correct, if the light was not expected to blueshift, and if they did not take into consideration an increase in gravitational field, as the gravity wave hit, slowing the rate of time. These are vital premiss of GR!
SpaceFlow - The only reason we can use light to make a measurement, be that measurement by interference patterns, or by method of journey time, is because the speed of light is constant.My logic 'is' holding both the speed of light and the speed of gravity as constant, and 'equal'...Please see rough sketches for an illustration of what is going on here.Line A - is an illustration of the speed of light.Line B - is an illustration of light making the same distance in a contracted rate of time.Line C - is an illustration of light making the same distance in a dilated rate of time.Please note : because I have contracted and dilated a second by an equal amount, the measurement of by how much the 'length' of distance 'appears' to have contracted in relation to being measured via, what I will call, a standard second, is also equal... It is quite clear from this illustration that it is 'not' the length of the distance that has contracted, just that the light has taken, travelling at the speed of light, a shorter, or longer 'amount of time' to travel the distance.This is 'nothing new'. Physicists got to this point over 100 years ago... However, and 'this' is where the BIG MISTAKE in physics lies... they have based their concept of the behaviour of light in a changing gravitational field on the behaviour of bodies of mass in a changing gravitational field, and have based all 'time drift' consideration on the fact that a clock runs a tiny bit faster at elevation...and that a gravitational field slows the rate of time 'to the tune' of the amount by which a clock runs faster in elevation.Line D - illustrates an amount (exaggerated from 'reality' proportions to + 5% of a standard second), by which time is thought to be slowed.Line E - illustrates that if the rate of time increased for a stronger gravitational field in a more widely variable fashion than it is currently believed of a gravitational field 'slowing time', 'how' it could come about that current physics would be 'forced' to accept that a contraction of a 'length' is occurring.I am saying that the 'true nature' of the rate of time for a gravitational field can be found in the frequency of light reducing in a weakening gravitational field.Recalculating the universe under this remit gives a cyclic universe that finds the beginning and end of its cycles within the black hole phenomenon...and quite a few other really exciting side issues btw.
He has said that blue shifted light will not affect the light in the tube.
Where-ever that light is measured, it will have blue shifted to the tune of the gravitational field of the gravity wave as it passed, and then redshifted back to earth's usual gravitational field.
When a gravitational wave passes through the interferometer, the space-time in the local area is altered. Depending on the source of the wave and its polarization, this results in an effective change in length of one or both of the cavities. The effective length change between the beams will cause the light currently in the cavity to become very slightly out of phase (antiphase) with the incoming light. The cavity will therefore periodically get very slightly out of coherence and the beams, which are tuned to destructively interfere at the detector, will have a very slight periodically varying detuning. This results in a measurable signal.After an equivalent of approximately 280 trips down the 4 km length to the far mirrors and back again, the two separate beams leave the arms and recombine at the beam splitter. The beams returning from two arms are kept out of phase so that when the arms are both in coherence and interference (as when there is no gravitational wave passing through), their light waves subtract, and no light should arrive at the photodiode. When a gravitational wave passes through the interferometer, the distances along the arms of the interferometer are shortened and lengthened, causing the beams to become slightly less out of antiphase. This results in the beams coming in phase, creating a resonance, hence, some light arrives at the photodiode, indicating a signal.
At the bottom of a gravity well, all matter waves have higher frequencies than control matter waves outside the gravity well. When such a blueshifted matter wave climbs out of the gravity well, its frequency decreases to a "normal" level, so that comparing its frequency with the frequency of a control matter wave will not show any reddening. An observer at the bottom of a gravity well cannot observe any blueshift of incoming matter waves, because the observer is himself blueshifted. Thus, gravitational redshift and gravitational blueshift are not directly observable.
""When a gravitational wave passes through the interferometer, the space time in the local area is altered.""Here we have the defining statement!Part of the altering of space time under the remit of GR incorporates that an increase in gravitational field causes the rate of time to slow.Under the remit of calculating the event of the gravity wave via the interference patterns, will this slowing of time in relation to the speed of light, and the distance of the tubes, have been taken into consideration within the calculations?
Part of the altering of space time under the remit of GR incorporates that an increase in gravitational field causes the rate of time to slow.Under the remit of calculating the event of the gravity wave via the interference patterns, will this slowing of time in relation to the speed of light, and the distance of the tubes, have been taken into consideration within the calculations?
Remember that the interferometer is a local observer, not a free falling observer nor a non-local observer.The calculations take account of the stretching/compression of spacetime and the light passing through it. I suspect that's why Jeff made his comment about Hubble's Law.I remember a good paper on this which was very low maths, I'll see if I can find it.
Quote from: Colin2B on 07/03/2016 11:18:07Remember that the interferometer is a local observer, not a free falling observer nor a non-local observer.The calculations take account of the stretching/compression of spacetime and the light passing through it. I suspect that's why Jeff made his comment about Hubble's Law.I remember a good paper on this which was very low maths, I'll see if I can find it.Even if the phenomenon of redshift blueshift were 'observer dependent' which it isn't... please see Pound Rebka experiment... what we are looking at within the gravity wave considerations is an alteration of space time that causes the 'local' space time to change.Yes you are quite correct that the calculations take into account of the 'light' having been compressed and then returning to usual earth parameters. Damn right they have!!!And... the distance by which the tubes are supposed to be compressed by - would have been greater than it is - if they had not of already subtracted the 'slowing' of time considerations from the interference patterns!!! That is a fact!!!Jeff's comment, I believe, was much more perceptively derived than you are realising, however, it always becomes a dodgy area discerning that which goes on in other people's heads...so the fact that this is what 'I' believe, doesn't necessarily make it so...with respect to both Jeff's thoughts and your own on the matter. I have 'already' read extensively concerning all aspects of the redshift blueshift phenomenon, however it is never wise to think oneself proficient! There is always something more to be gleaned from further study in any field. Hit me with it! (chuckle)
Box, if you are going to prove or disprove GR, time drift considerations are unavoidable... Please 'get with' this FACT!!! Seriously
Well...erm... while my mathematical impression of a young child learning how to ride a bike that's too big without stabilisers, resulting in wobbly maths syndrome - in relation to your box singularity ideas - I daresay might well make for a wonderful comedy piece...if you actually want any maths 'done', you really are barking up the wrong tree here with me mate...Inverse square law... Look, just draw an X on a piece of paper, but unlike that X, make the cross over in equal proportions. Then draw radius of equal proportions, in circles around the cross section point. Each of the quarter sections divided by the divisions of the X is showing you a representation of the inverse square law... Good luck!
My guess is you are not describing blades so this is not differential geometry.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 07/03/2016 14:05:34My guess is you are not describing blades so this is not differential geometry.What do you mean by ''blades'' Jeff?I am not trying to describe Geometry as such, I am trying to describe the singularity whole of K=0 between all mass and that space-time is only between masses. time only exists of mass, space is not expanding an object can relativity contract to k=0.And to see anything there has to be a ''width'' of light. Width of light shows 3 dimensional objects , no width it remains a singularity. I.e the dust particle I explained in other thread is a singularity. Consider wave-width instead of wave-length.Imagine a piece of elastic that was unbreakable, imagine you stretched and stretched and stretched the elastic until the density was stretched so thin you could not even see the elastic any more turning the elastic into a dimensionless singularity. Now imagine this elastic is made of two components, emr which always wants to expand and dark energy that always wants to contract.
Lol I just looked up Grassman algebra, could you imagine the look on my face, like I had just found some alien coding or something lol.