[Halc]

The real answer then has to be that distant material loses its ability to affect material that's beyond detectable range due to the rate of expansion between them being too high to pass signals.

Time dilation is a geometry thing, not a cause-effect thing. Gravity doesn’t travel, nor does it operate by ‘signals’. I’ve said this before.

They don't describe it, but that doesn't mean it isn't meaningful in them.

It would be meaningful in certain geometries, but not in any geometry described by any of the current models describing the universe. Translation: A model where this notion of absolute gravitational depth is meaningful would necessarily make different predictions than the ones we see.

In  a correct theory, there must be an answer to that question which is compatible with that theory.

Only a theory that suggests the question needs to have an answer to it.

Any theory that says we are and which makes our clocks tick infinitely slower than some other clock is plain wrong.

Interesting assertion, essentially declaring only your theory to be wrong. GR has clocks ticking infinitely faster coordinate rates than others, but they’re just coordinate rates, abstract concepts changed effortlessly with a flick of a pencil. Your theory demands that one of these coordinate rates is a physical rate, meaning such infinite rate differences are physical ratios, not just relative only to certain abstract coordinate system and not others. I don’t find this entirely contradictory in itself, but you seem to declare it so here. You seem determined to create rules that sink only your own ship.

A valid theory has to be able to run time and advance events if it's to have real causation acting in it.

Your inability to drop that premise makes it a bias. You can declare it isn’t all you want, but until you demonstrate a self inconsistency and not just an inconsistency with the premise not taken, then it’s merely a premise, and a bias since you’re incapable of considering a theory without it.


I think I’m going to bail out on the conversation since even with my reminder, you are not making any headway with this example you seem to think disproves STR or something. The argument was that something wasn’t symmetrical, but it wasn’t clear what symmetry you think should be there or how STR (or any theory) concludes that the symmetry to which you refer should occur in your scenario.

[David Cooper (OP)]

Time dilation is a geometry thing, not a cause-effect thing. Gravity doesn’t travel, nor does it operate by ‘signals’. I’ve said this before.

Only if you're seeing it through the lens of a theory that treats it as such. Gravity clearly must travel or a black hole's gravity well could not keep changing the length contraction applied to it when it accelerates (as in cases where two of them orbit each other), and those changes propagate outwards at the speed of light. That counts as signals travelling. They cannot get out from a singularity either. But some theories like to account for such things by magic and mistakenly get classed as science.

Any theory that says we are and which makes our clocks tick infinitely slower than some other clock is plain wrong.

Interesting assertion, essentially declaring only your theory to be wrong.

LET doesn't have any clocks ticking infinitely slower than others unless they aren't ticking at all. The theories that are wrong are that ones that have those clocks ticking while ticking infinitely slower than others.

GR has clocks ticking infinitely faster coordinate rates than others, but they’re just coordinate rates, abstract concepts changed effortlessly with a flick of a pencil.

Indeed, and they aren't really ticking. That's the whole point. But you want them to be ticking while ticking infinitely slower than other clocks, and that cannot happen.

Your theory demands that one of these coordinate rates is a physical rate, meaning such infinite rate differences are physical ratios, not just relative only to certain abstract coordinate system and not others. I don’t find this entirely contradictory in itself, but you seem to declare it so here. You seem determined to create rules that sink only your own ship.

I don't see any problem for LET with this at all. If the universe is expanding, absolute time is not tied to any slowed clocks in the universe but is above all that, outside and governing all the action inside. Clocks anywhere in the universe which aren't moving through the space fabric are ticking at rates relative to absolute time which vary depending on how much they're slowed by gravity wells, but they may also tick slow due to other factors which can't be assessed from inside the universe. It all works perfectly well, but you try to make out it doesn't by demanding that there be some clock inside the universe that ticks at the rate of absolute time. Time itself ticks at that rate throughout the universe though: it just isn't a clock that can be read directly.

A valid theory has to be able to run time and advance events if it's to have real causation acting in it.

Your inability to drop that premise makes it a bias.

There's no bias whatsoever in pointing out what reason dictates. No running of causation means no causation. Shifting from science to magic doesn't fix that.

...you are not making any headway with this example you seem to think disproves STR or something. The argument was that something wasn’t symmetrical, but it wasn’t clear what symmetry you think should be there or how STR (or any theory) concludes that the symmetry to which you refer should occur in your scenario.

The asymmetry of probability was merely introduced as a demonstration that there are asymmetries. It shouldn't even have been necessary to bring that in because the case against STR was already disproved in a multitude of ways (the most recent of which even set out an experiment that could be carried out to measure absolute speed in expanding space), but you simply deny them all just as you have again here over the causation issue where you support magic over science, and the big question is why you want to do that. A theory that allows causation to run is infinitely simpler than a theory that doesn't because the former eliminates the latter's dependence on an infinite quantity of luck. A theory with a single aether applying a speed limit to light travelling through space is infinitely simpler than a theory with an infinite number of magical nothings all applying a different speed limit to light at the same time to make it move at all possible speeds from 0 to c relative to the same object. STR is simply bonkers, and yet you have to defend it because the establishment requires you to so that you can wear its robes and status. You allow them to control your thinking, and to shut key parts of it down. You've made a long series of incorrect assertions in this conversation which I've taken apart for you all the way through, and you don't seem to notice that that's happened. You just keep applying rules of broken theories to things and say that "mine" must be broken because it doesn't conform to their broken rules. You insist that a clock can tick infinitely slower than another while continuing to tick, and when you tried to provide examples, you didn't have any that demonstrate it because in all such cases those clocks have actually stopped ticking. Then you say that my rules don't apply to their broken theories because my rules are biased by requiring causation to run as a process in which causes actually cause their effects rather than the effects not being caused by their imagined causes. If effects are not caused by their imagined causes, those imagined causes cannot justifiably be described as causes and there cannot be any causation. Without a running process of causation, the effects cannot be caused by the "causes". Causation has to run if it's to be real, and as soon as you have that running process of causation, you automatically have time running with it. This is one of the most fundamental necessary things in science, but physicists choose magic instead while asserting that they're the ones doing science. How did it get into this mess?

[Halc]

The asymmetry of probability was merely introduced as a demonstration that there are asymmetries.

You’ve vaguely alluded to such an asymmetry, but all you’ve demonstrated is that (in abstract Minkowski spacetime) given an object A and an arbitrary reference frame F in which A is moving, an object moving at .866c relative to A in a random direction relative to A will probably be moving faster in frame F than is A.  I computed it to approach 79% likely, and even more likely (up to 100%) if A is moving at an improbably low speed in F.  Given the lack of knowledge of the motion of A in frame F, this probability is the same in every direction relative to A, so the symmetry is perfect.
You apparently mean something else by this claim of asymmetry, but you’ve failed to spell it out despite repeated requests. Still waiting.

(the most recent of which even set out an experiment that could be carried out to measure absolute speed in expanding space)

Your experiment would not produce the behavior you suggest. Instead, the two objects would accelerate away from each other due to tidal forces from nearby stars and other masses.  This assumes you’ve put them in a place with no significant masses between them. Newton and Kepler could have told you that, but you’ve asserted a different story.
I love how you propose these experiments, safe in the knowledge that they cannot practically be done, and then declare what result will occur despite the lack of actually working out what any theory (LET or relativity) predicts.  Expansion is not a force and does not make object begin to move apart if they’re  not already moving apart, and thus cannot play any role in the motion of two relatively stationary objects placed in otherwise empty space.

[David Cooper (OP)]

You apparently mean something else by this claim of asymmetry, but you’ve failed to spell it out despite repeated requests. Still waiting.

The evidence of what actually happened is all up there above, so I'll just leave it to tell the story.

Your experiment would not produce the behavior you suggest. Instead, the two objects would accelerate away from each other due to tidal forces from nearby stars and other masses.

The paper deals with precisely that issue and spells out how you can prevent them accelerating apart.

I love how you propose these experiments, safe in the knowledge that they cannot practically be done, and then declare what result will occur despite the lack of actually working out what any theory (LET or relativity) predicts.

I showed that we're close to being able to carry it out, and I spelt out precisely what LET and STR predict. You clearly never bothered to read it with any attention to detail at all, so your glib commentary on it is ill-informed.

Expansion is not a force and does not make object begin to move apart if they’re not already moving apart, and thus cannot play any role in the motion of two relatively stationary objects placed in otherwise empty space.

If that was true, distant galaxies wouldn't be moving away from us at relativistic speeds, never mind accelerating away from us.

[gem]

Hi all
Halc when you stated:

Time dilation is a geometry thing, not a cause-effect thing. Gravity doesn’t travel, nor does it operate by ‘signals’. I’ve said this before.

How does this statement not contradict gravitational waves detected and the speed attributed to them and the energy they transfer ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

[Kryptid]

How does this statement not contradict gravitational waves detected and the speed attributed to them and the energy they transfer ?

Gravitational waves are not gravitational fields. The relationship between the two is like the relationship between electromagnetic waves and electromagnetic fields.

[gem]

How does this statement not contradict gravitational waves detected and the speed attributed to them and the energy they transfer ?

Gravitational waves are not gravitational fields. The relationship between the two is like the relationship between electromagnetic waves and electromagnetic fields.

Then surely the waves that are generated that make up the field, transfer energy and momentum ?
and its the difference in this energy and momentum is what is detected by experiments such as LIGO therefore a transfer.
(cause effect )

[Halc]

Then surely the waves that are generated that make up the field, transfer energy and momentum ?

Energy and information, definitely. Momentum? A bit perhaps since the Earth loses orbital energy at a rate of about 200 watts, and that means a tiny decrease in orbital angular momentum, which has to go somewhere.
Yes, all this travels at light speed, but the gravitational field (gravity itself) is already there and is not something that travels.  The gravitational field is not an energy or momentum field, but rather a gravitational potential field, the derivative of which yields a gradient, which in turn can be expressed (in Newtonian terms) as an acceleration field.

and its the difference in this energy and momentum is what is detected by experiments such as LIGO therefore a transfer.

LIGO detects the physical distortion to spacetime, and does not directly measure energy, force, or momentum.

[gem]

Hi all,

So my time is a little short at the moment and would like to pick up on a couple of points later,
I don't want to appear rude, but I don't believe this statement is totally correct.

LIGO detects the physical distortion to spacetime, and does not directly measure energy, force, or momentum.

unless things like thunderstorms and distance trains distort space-time ?

However I am certainly not making a case against GR

[Kryptid]

unless things like thunderstorms and distance trains distort space-time ?

The problem is that the mechanism by which LIGO detects distortions in space caused by a passing gravitational wave is subject to detecting vibrations as well. Trains and thunder produce vibrations.

[gem]

Hi all

unless things like thunderstorms and distance trains distort space-time ?

The problem is that the mechanism by which LIGO detects distortions in space caused by a passing gravitational wave is subject to detecting vibrations as well. Trains and thunder produce vibrations.

So is it not just an energy wave detector, detecting an effect from a cause ?

[Kryptid]

So is it not just an energy wave detector, detecting an effect from a cause ?

It is an energy wave detector. The gravitational waves are a cause by which changes in the mirror distance can be detected. That is a cause producing a detectable effect. We can know when they are caused by gravitational waves and not local disturbances because (1) gravitational waves produce predictable, regular and opposite changes between the two different arms of the detectors, and (2) LIGO has two stations very, very far apart: one in Louisiana and one in Washington state. If both detectors pick up the trademark pattern of a gravitational wave at roughly the same time, then that rules out local vibrations as the cause. VIRGO, a similar gravitational wave detector in Italy, can provide further confirmation of the detection.

[gem]

Hi all
yes thank you Kryptid that's pretty much how I understood it to be.
 

[jeffreyH]

In a perfectly circular orbit it is the direction that is changing and not the speed. Increasing velocity causes time dilation. In SR this would involve a straight line path and a change in speed. That is, acceleration. If the straight line path does not change speed this is inertial motion. The question becomes, does the change in direction alone make the straight line path different in its time dilation than the orbital path, if the speeds are the same. The speed of the orbit is the magnitude of an orbital an angular velocity.

[jeffreyH]

In case anyone wants to argue against time dilation not being a speed only effect, c squared and v squared are both scalars without a directional component.

[gem]

Hi all

In a perfectly circular orbit it is the direction that is changing and not the speed. Increasing velocity causes time dilation. In SR this would involve a straight line path and a change in speed. That is, acceleration. If the straight line path does not change speed this is inertial motion. The question becomes, does the change in direction alone make the straight line path different in its time dilation than the orbital path, if the speeds are the same. The speed of the orbit is the magnitude of an orbital an angular velocity.

Are you touching on straight lines in curved space-time
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesics_in_general_relativity