Now try it for two NIST optical clocks one of which is 30cm lower than the other. The lower clock runs slower. And they are optical clocks. I am not the naïve sighted man, and GR is not some "projection system". I am the scientist.
At Rest with our Hubble view
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
I agree with energy density of the medium of space governs the speed of light and light bends as it goes from one density to another. This is in line with both Einstein and Newton. But when it comes to cosmology, I don't have any issues with the expanding universe or what you'd call the big bang. My understanding of general relativity tells me that space just has to expand.
That's Markus for you. When soundly beaten in an argument, he starts bleating for censorship and crying for his mummy. He is a self-appointed "expert" who cannot bear it when his expertise is found wanting and his ignorance is exposed. An honest poster would accept my references to Einstein and arXiv re VSL and aether. Markus ignores it, and still calls me a crackpot, and calls for me to be censored. What's all the more amazing is that he thinks others posters or moderators will be in any way convinced by this.
Oh good, you learned a new word. However, your scathing opinion of my alternative views is without merit or civility.
Thank you for the confirmation. As for the rest, we don't have any issues with the expanding observable universe, or with the greater expanding big bang arena that is causally connected to the initial event that caused the observed expansion.
We do apparently disagree about the nature of space and the character of the observed expansion. You understand that GR says space just has to expand, and that is the apparent circumstance; it is the consensus that of the three "shapes" described by GR that the universe is "open" as opposed to "closed", and is nearly "flat".
However, GR explains expansion as new space being added, while my alternative view is that the galaxies and galaxy groups have separation momentum dating back to the early epoch after the big bang where particles formed within an expanding environment. In my so called model, the early particles had separation momentum imparted to them and were moving away from each other as they formed in the expanding environment. Gravitational attraction caused clumping of particles in close quarters, but the separation momentum was conserved and the clumps, as they formed, were also moving away from each other, right on up the size scale. My alternative view is that the observed separation of the galaxies is not due to new space being added to the universe, which I consider to be potentially infinite spatially, but due to conservation of separation momentum.
We all know that this is a lie. We know that you can't actually perform any calculations with GR. You have shown this because you lie that you answer all questions but you never answer any questions about the specific claims that you make that actually have measurable results. So you are just another aether theorist; your twist is that you lie about Einstein while doing it.
It is a lie for you to present this quotation because you know that he abandoned this position.
It is possible that you simply do not understand this, since you are unable to follow the basic mathematics of GR; the principle has a specific form in SR that cannot hold in GR except in the local area around points in a manifold.
Why do you bother to continue to post this here, when your continued lying and dodging serious questions must taint anything you write here?
So, how does this follow from the Einstein field equation?
When I said projection I didn't mean GR was like a physical system with a lens that throws and image onto a screen. Well not exactly. While the human eye does work that way, that fact does not negate that General Relativity has a history in projective geometry. You should look up names like Riemann (the Riemann sphere is projective), or Poincaré, or Minkowski. Einstein was well versed in the subject of projective geometry. You will find plenty of very advance physics that mentions the subject. And the only reason we have some of the advanced mathematics we do have, is because of mathematical investigations into projective geometries in the 19th century. Physics caught up in the early 20th century. In a recent class I took I found out that even Logic makes use of projections. Projection is everywhere.
http://newempiricism.blogspot.com/2009/02/some-notes-on-projective-geometry.html
Until the twentieth century physicists regarded this geometry as little more than an interesting insight into perspective drawing although mathematicians such as Klein thought that it might lie at the root of all geometry. However, in 1908 Hermann Minkowski discovered that Einstein's theory of Special Relativity was actually due to the existence of four dimensional spacetime and could be analysed using projective geometry (See Silagadze 2007).
Also see: http://www.sccg.sk/~chalmo/Materialy/habilitacnaprednaska.pdf
The point of the story was that your gif shows that you are similar to the naive sighted man. Your gif picture is lacking meaning. It shows no distinction between different frames and in fact implies both clocks are in the same frame. And you interpret the meaning to be that one light pulse is slower than the other because of that mistake.
Last edited:
I see, so the answer is "yes", you made up this term all by yourself.
That was not the question I asked.
That was also not the question. So, it is clear that you do not know the answers to the two questions I asked you and that you are back to your favorite past time: trolling.
That means that you should keep your posts in "Alternative Theories", not here. This forum is "Science", what you are doing is anything but.
Your position above has already been thoroughly refuted, John. You keep trying to do physics by cherry-picking quotes and it isn't working.
True. Hopefully my thread will eventually be moved there as I have already requested; awaiting moderator action on that :shrug:
I wouldn't go so far as to say "GR says space has to expand". If it did I think everybody would have been saying it. Instead I'd say my understanding of GR tells me that space has to expand.
I'm not sure there's much consensus about that. We hear talk of a toroidal universe with innate curvature, an infinite universe, and infinite number of infinite universe, a bouncing universe, and so on.quantum_wave said:
I'm not sure it does actually. I'd say big bang cosmologists often say that, but they also say space is expanding, ie it's the same space getting bigger.quantum_wave said:
I'm afraid I don't concur with that alternative view. Take a look at Einstein's 1929 presentation on the history of field theory and note this, where he's talking about electromagnetic and gravitational fields:quantum wave said:
"The two types of field are causally linked in this theory, but still not fused to an identity. It can, however, scarcely be imagined that empty space has conditions or states of two essentially different kinds, and it is natural to suspect that this only appears to be so because the structure of the physical continuum is not completely described by the Riemannian metric".
He sees a field as a "state of space". Your alternative view seems to treat space as nothing, and focuses on particles in space. Whatever disputes there may be about the interpretation of GR, it concerns space / spacetime as a thing with characteristics that alter the motion of particles. The raisins-in-the cake analogy fits well with this, your alternative view seems to be more like a raisin explosion in a void. Sorry, I'm not fond of it.
While this is true, it does not mean that the light also runs slower according to your fringe misconceptions, Duffield.
It doesn't follow from the EFE as such. See my post above re field theory and the state of space, then look at the stress-energy tensor. You can see shear stress in there. That tells you immediately that Einstein thought of space not only a thing rather than nothing, but a thing with "elastic" properties. Then see the pressure diagonal, and note that Phil Plait referred to dark energy as pressure. This ought to tell you that space has an innate pressure. It's the stress-energy (momentum) tensor remember, and stress is just directional pressure. In an infinite universe this pressure is counterbalanced at all locations, so it cannot drive any expansion. But as far as we can tell the universe is expanding, and started from a small size 13.8 billion years ago. Ergo it cannot be infinite, and the innate pressure of space is unbalanced and is making it increase in size.
Note that there is no overall gravity in this universe because on a large scale, the energy density is uniform as per the FLRW assumption. There's no pressure gradient either. But that doesn't mean there is no pressure. The Einstein field equation relates the stress-energy tensor to the metric tensor which describes how your plot of measurement exhibit curvature in a gravitational field. In a homogeneous universe, they don't.
Mine are not fringe misconceptions. The coordinate speed of light varies in a non-inertial reference such as a gravitational field. You know this. You know I know it. You know that the coordinate speed of light reduces in line with gravitational potential. And by the way, a couple of pages back you gave a pathetic response to the parallel-mirror light-clocks gif, claiming that the distance was greater for the lower clock. That's garbage, and you know it. In GR we talk of radial length contraction. The mirrors are orthogonal to this. And the radial length contraction increases when you go lower. Distance reduce, not increase. You are talking garbage. You know it, everybody knows it.
Markus Hanke
Registered Senior Member
I think I have waited long enough now; it is obvious that no intervention from the moderator team is forthcoming, nor is my position with regards to the classification of threads even being acknowledged. I do not wish to be associated with a forum that permits the level of intellectual dishonesty and trolling as for example demonstrated by people like John Duffield in post 566, without even an attempt at moderator action. If you value this level of ignorance over scientific accuracy, then I have no place here, and rather contribute the knowledge I have to other communities.
As for this forum, it is not hard to predict how it will fare in the long run; let's just say the last one out the door remember to turn off the lights.
Good luck and good bye.
As for this forum, it is not hard to predict how it will fare in the long run; let's just say the last one out the door remember to turn off the lights.
Good luck and good bye.
I suppose we do have gravitational lensing. But projection isn't why the lower clock goes slower.
It is slower. That's why the lower clock goes slower than the upper clock. That's why the lower NIST optical clock goes slower than the upper NIST optical clock that's only 30cm higher. There are no "frames". A frame is an abstraction. You can see a clock, you can see light, but you can't see a frame. Both clocks are just sitting there in front of you, a foot apart. I'm not naïve. Or blind. Now come on, try explaining how one clock can be going slower than the other when the light in both clocks is going at the same speed. See my response to Tach above. A greater distance isn't the answer.
OK, I see the distinction now.
In my view, GR is one model that says what it says. It mentions the three "shapes", open, closed, and flat. Since BBT is known as the current cosmological consensus, I feel it is appropriate to say that of the three shapes, the consensus is "open" but nearly "flat". The other shapes are associated with other models, in my view.
This is a difference between new space being added between galaxies, which is the consensus, and space getting bigger, which implies all space is "stretching". The problem with stretching is that the space within galaxies is not said to be stretching, at least not in my understanding of BBT.
It should be comforting to know that I am further out on the limb,
.Take a look at Einstein's 1929 presentation on the history of field theory and note this, where he's talking about electromagnetic and gravitational fields:
"The two types of field are causally linked in this theory, but still not fused to an identity. It can, however, scarcely be imagined that empty space has conditions or states of two essentially different kinds, and it is natural to suspect that this only appears to be so because the structure of the physical continuum is not completely described by the Riemannian metric".
Well, he is the genius. I'll have to agree with that.
No quite, in my so called model, space is three dimensional, and is never empty, but it is descriptive of my view to say that if everything was removed from a given space it would be empty. If I understand your view, space is something that has some physical existance of its own, and so if everything was removed from space, the space would be gone.
And it is a misunderstanding of my so called model to say that it focuses on particles in empty space. Space is never empty, it is filled with a medium that carries wave energy. If you remove everything, you remove the medium, leaving empty space.
Agreed.
No, the big bang was the collapse/bounce of a big crunch, not an explosion in my so called model. And there is no void, anywhere.
Well, I would be surprised to find anyone who was fond of it
Thanks for the contributions that you did make, though they were usually done in a vindictive manner. You seem uncomfortable participating in open forum discussions for some reason. But I agree, this thread belongs in the Fringe forums, and I am now posting with the understanding that it will be moved there.
Good luck, and I might be the one turning out the lights.