At Rest with our Hubble view

[Tach]

To start, on the basis that I think it has been agreed that it is possible to be at rest relative to the generalized redshifted light sources and the CMBR,

No, it is not possible and it is not true. You are making multiple mistakes:

1. CMBR is not a frame, so you cannot be "at rest wrt CMBR"
2. The redshifted light sources are galaxies that move at different speeds, so you "could" be at rest wrt to some of such sources but you cannot be at rest wrt to all such sources.

then I hypothesize that we can also be at rest relative to all of the gravitational wave energy sources as well. Do you agree?

Nope, same mistake as above.

 

[PhysBang]

It doesn't follow from the EFE as such.

Then you are lying when you say what you are doing is what Einstein did. All of GR is there to deliver and explain the Einstein Field equation.

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.

This is more embarrassing garbage; you are throwing the same word salad when, if you had any ability and integrity, you would actually provide us with the details that describe a physical system with the relevant mathematics.

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.

More embarrassing garbage; Einstein used his field equation to actually describe the action of gravity throughout the universe with the same assumptions as the FLRW models. Your continued insult to Einstein is a stain on your character.

 

[quantum_wave]

No, it is not possible and it is not true. You are making multiple mistakes:

1. CMBR is not a frame, so you cannot be "at rest wrt CMBR"
2. The redshifted light sources are galaxies that move at different speeds, so you "could" be at rest wrt to some of such sources but you cannot be at rest wrt to all such sources.





Nope, same mistake as above.

When it was discussed I qualified the statement by saying at rest relative to the generalized redshift, meaning conceptually the distant galaxies could be thought to generally all be moving away and the rate of recession could be generalized such that we could consider it to be the same in all directions. Also, try Googling CMB rest frame.

Also, isn't there a place in space between the Earth and the Moon where the gravitational force is equalized and if you were able to get there, and then adjust your position in space you could stay in the sweet spot? I'm just conceptualizing the sweet spot to encompass the whole Hubble view :shrug:

 

[quantum_wave]

Then you are lying when you say what you are doing is what Einstein did. All of GR is there to deliver and explain the Einstein Field equation.


This is more embarrassing garbage; you are throwing the same word salad when, if you had any ability and integrity, you would actually provide us with the details that describe a physical system with the relevant mathematics.


More embarrassing garbage; Einstein used his field equation to actually describe the action of gravity throughout the universe with the same assumptions as the FLRW models. Your continued insult to Einstein is a stain on your character.

Get over it PhysBang.

 

[Tach]

When it was discussed I qualified the statement by saying at rest relative to the generalized redshift, meaning conceptually the distant galaxies could be thought to generally all be moving away and the rate of recession could be generalized such that we could consider it to be the same in all directions.

They are NOT. You need to stop posting BS and trying to pass it as science.

Also, try Googling CMB rest frame.

I don't need to, I know exactly that you don't know what you are talking about. You tried to pass CMBR as a rest frame, CMBR is not a frame, so you don't know what you are talking about.

Also, isn't there a place in space between the Earth and the Moon where the gravitational force is equalized

This is called the Lagrange point and has nothing to do with gravitational waves.

and if you were able to get there, and then adjust your position in space you could stay in the sweet spot? I'm just conceptualizing the sweet spot to encompass the whole Hubble view :shrug:

What does this new nonsense about "Hubble view" have to do with the nonsense you posted about the sources of gravitational waves?

 

[quantum_wave]

They are NOT. You need to stop posting BS and trying to pass it as science.




I don't need to, I know exactly that you don't know what you are talking about. You tried to pass CMBR as a rest frame, CMBR is not a frame, so you don't know what you are talking about.




This is called the Lagrange point and has nothing to do with gravitational waves.




What does this new nonsense about "Hubble view" have to do with the nonsense you posted about the sources of gravitational waves?

Have it your way.

 

[quantum_wave]

For the record, moderation action to move the thread is pending. Posts should be considered to be in the Alternative Theories forum.

This part of the discussion would be about the hypothesis that gravitational energy in the space between objects moves at the speed of light, and it would also be about the hypothesis that if objects emit gravity waves as out flowing wave energy in all directions (spherical out flow), then they also accept inflowing gravitational wave energy. Motion would be determined by the net directional imbalance in the inflowing wave energy. These are alternative hypotheses to the standard cosmological model, and any response invoking the mainstream ideas should be evaluated from the perspective that they are standard theory specific, and therefore don't apply to this alternative discussion.

 

[rr6]

Also, isn't there a place in space between the Earth and the Moon where the gravitational force is equalized and if you were able to get there, and then adjust your position in space you could stay in the sweet spot? I'm just conceptualizing the sweet spot to encompass the whole Hubble view :shrug:

Hi QW, sorry no sweet spots exist anywhere in our finite Universe.

A mass--at rest or not ---is always falling into one system or another and out of some other system(s) or another.

Fuller calls it the critical limit, i.e. no sweet spot only a critical limit that were the mass is inside or outside of.

Perhaps a mass can hover/oscillate between in and out if all of the other gravitational and charges are out factored in to create a specific condition that creates i'm in, i'm out, i'm back in, i'm back out,

like a minimal drunkard who is able to keep it together enough to convince the officer he can walk a straight line, with only slight variations to each side.

that is true of all us i.e. we are always balancing when we walk to appear as tho where in that sweet spot as we traverse the line, pathway, trajectory of life. Were always ON, but were never perfect, just close enough that we don't land on the seat of our pants, most of the time..

r6

 

[Tach]

For the record, moderation action to move the thread is pending. Posts should be considered to be in the Alternative Theories forum.

This part of the discussion would be about the hypothesis that gravitational energy in the space between objects moves at the speed of light,

Gravitational energy doesn't "move between objects". Gravitational waves propagate (at c).

and it would also be about the hypothesis that if objects emit gravity waves as out flowing wave energy in all directions (spherical out flow), then they also accept inflowing gravitational wave energy. Motion would be determined by the net directional imbalance in the inflowing wave energy. These are alternative hypotheses to the standard cosmological model, and any response invoking the mainstream ideas should be evaluated from the perspective that they are standard theory specific, and therefore don't apply to this alternative discussion.

Yep, this belongs in the fringe part of the forum, I have to agree with you.

 

[quantum_wave]

Hi QW, sorry no sweet spots exist anywhere in our finite Universe.

A mass--at rest or not ---is always falling into one system or another and out of some other system(s) or another.

Fuller calls it the critical limit, i.e. no sweet spot only a critical limit that were the mass is inside or outside of.

Perhaps a mass can hover/oscillate between in and out if all of the other gravitational and charges are out factored in to create a specific condition that creates i'm in, i'm out, i'm back in, i'm back out,

like a minimal drunkard who is able to keep it together enough to convince the officer he can walk a straight line, with only slight variations to each side.

that is true of all us i.e. we are always balancing when we walk to appear as tho where in that sweet spot as we traverse the line, pathway, trajectory of life. Were always ON, but were never perfect, just close enough that we don't land on the seat of our pants, most of the time..

r6

Well said, r6. The concept of a sweet spot, or as Tach mentioned, the Legrange point, is a location that continually changes, but for the objects in question, if one could adjust his position continually in space, he could stay in the moving Legrange point. If that concept is true, and if a Legrange point can be established for multiple objects in space, which I would think possible, then for an instant one could be in that sweet spot. I know it is a stretch to suggest the the point would move smoothly as the multiple objects move through space such that by adjusting one's position one could remain in the moving sweet spot, we are talking hypothetically here .

 

[quantum_wave]

Gravitational energy doesn't "move between objects". Gravitational waves propagate (at c).



Yep, this belongs in the fringe part of the forum, I have to agree with you.

Well said.

 

[PhysBang]

Get over it PhysBang.

So you are fine with Farsight making up physics without doing any work and making authoritative statements on multiple message boards and insulting the work of physicists?

 

[quantum_wave]

So you are fine with Farsight making up physics without doing any work and making authoritative statements on multiple message boards and insulting the work of physicists?

Not a problem, but then I'm not fixated on some sort of self-appointed mission that derails any on-topic discussion; not that that might matter in the grand scheme of things :shrug:. You over do it is all I'm saying. You're not too interested in my topic, and I'd like you to give it a rest on my so called thread.

 

[brucep]

Oh good, you learned a new word. However, your scathing opinion of my alternative views is without merit or civility.

You actually think the ignorant nonsense you post is an alternative scientific model? You think just because you're alive that others have to be civil about the nonsense you post? Get a clue.

 

[Farsight]

Sorry to be tardy responding.

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.

It's worth remembering that two out of three "shapes" were always going to be wrong. For myself I think GR has always "said" that the flat option is the right one, because inhomogeneous space equates to curved spacetime and the FLRW metric starts with the assumption of homogeneous space on the large scale.

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.

Try to think of it as decompressing rather than stretching, because the SEM tensor has pressure terms rather than tension terms.

Well, he is the genius. I'll have to agree with that.

But sadly he got his cosmology wrong, and failed in his attempt to unify electromagnetism and gravity.

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.

Yes, if you take all the energy out of space, there's no space left. In a way, at the fundamental level, space and energy are the same thing.

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.

I would urge you to think about this some more. Think of space itself as that medium.

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.

I can't concur with anything like a big crunch I'm afraid.

Well, I would be surprised to find anyone who was fond of it

But we can still have a civil discussion about cosmology. That's what forums like this are for. And hopefully we all learn something. I know I've learned a lot from forums like this.

 

[Farsight]

Coordinate speed of light has no bearing on the two light clocks example.

It does, Tach. You are seeing the big-picture view, you're looking at what you'd call two inertial frames at once, or one non-inertial frame. And in a non-inertial frame such as a gravitational field, the coordinate speed of light varies. The locally measured speed of light is ONLY constant because of the wave nature of matter. And you know that one 299,792,458 m/s is not the same as another because the seconds are not the same.

 

[Farsight]

As I said, your gif diagram is missing information. It is a naive version of what is really happening. While the clock's bouncing photon is not experiencing contraction or expansion in the orientation it is drawn. There is still length contraction in the problem. You are just blind to it. In order to watch the clock, which is what you appear to be doing, the light is traveling down from the higher clock to your position at the lower clock (or vice versa).

You don't have to watch the clock. You leave them running for a while, and then check their readings. The lower clock has a lower reading than the upper clock.

Those light rays are traveling at the speed of light but the spacetime it is traveling through is not flat.

I'm sorry Cheezle, but light does not travel through spacetime, it travels through space. Spacetime is an "all times at once" mathematical space. It's static. There's no motion in it.

It is kind of hyperbolic. Pythagorean theorem does not hold. It is very similar to the SR twin paradox. It is all about paths and duration and not about your perception. The image you see of the clock is a projection. Projection means dimensional flattening. It seems like the problem is three dimensional but it isn't. That is why I mentioned the idea of perspective in the story. The image gets flattened in the projection and the idea speed light seems to have slowed.

Cheezle, this is science fiction. Light clocks go slower when they're lower, end of story.

In SR twin paradox, the twin in the space ship can accelerate directly away from you and the return on the same path. If you watched with a telescope you would see the clock slow but no length contraction due to the orientation. The length contraction would be in the direction of travel and hidden from you. But the twins would still be different ages at the end of the experiment. Not seeing the length contraction does not mean it does not effect the final outcome of the experiment.

This isn't relevant because in SR we use a constant speed of light. Einstein said repeatedly that this postulate had to be abandoned for GR.

The interesting thing about my story was that the blind man is oblivious to the perspective problem. He can not be involved in any visual distortion being blind. But in the GR problem he would be able to detect some differences. Those differences are due to the path through space and time he takes to visit the two clocks. He would notice that any duration recorded at the clocks would be in conflict. But he would never see your idea of what is happening because your gif relies on the process of sight that is being flattened to lower dimensionality.

There is no perspective problem, and no lower dimensionality. When a clock goes slower it's because the regular cyclical motion within that clock is going slower. Even when it's a light clock.

 

[Farsight]

Here is a better explanation. The two clocks in the gif are experiencing the equivalence of acceleration, both accelerating but at different rates.

Hmmn. Yes, the principle of equivalence likened a gravitational field to acceleration, but those two clocks aren't actually accelerating. They aren't gaining any energy. They're located at two different elevations in a gravitational field, that's all.

When you see videos about SR they show the light clock at right angle to the path the accelerated spaceship is traveling in. For us, the stationary observer, the light pulse seems to travel in a diagonal path. Zigzagging back and forth. And that way it is easy to see that the clock ticks slower relative to our clock. The pulse always travels at the speed of light but the path is longer.

No problem with that.

But if you turn the clock so that the light path is aligned with the direction the of travel, it does not cause the clock to tick faster. Time is still dilated in the spaceship. The case of the two GR clocks is exactly the same. The orientation of the clock does not cause the time dilation change (which is not a speed but a duration effect). So your idea that the length contraction can't matter due to clock orientation is bogus. Length contraction is still in the picture. In your gif the light pulse in the upper clock is still following a diagonal path (through spacetime) in relation to us at the lower position clock. The speed of light is still the same for both clocks.

If length contraction was at work, the lower clock would go faster than the upper clock. It doesn't. I'm sorry Cheezle, but you're inventing things you cannot see in order to try to explain away something you can see, which is that optical clocks go slower when they're lower. And as I said, light doesn't move through spacetime because spacetime is static. Instead it moves through space. Just look at the gif, remember what Einstein said, and try not to let abstractions get in the way of what you can see.

Meanwhile, thanks for having a sincere try to explain this. You're the only one who's had a go.

 

[Farsight]

Hypothetically in my so called model, gravity is wave energy traversing the medium of space, and I refer to the gravity wave content of space as the energy density of that space. At any point in space, the highest net directional wave energy density of the gravitational waves is the direction that an object will move. Motion through space, even remote to any massive object, increases the energy density of an object by effectively increasing the wave energy density in the direction of motion.

With respect quantum_wave, this is too far removed from general relativity. I would urge you to review this, and try to be less of a "my model" guy.

 

[Farsight]

...My alternative topic is about the possibility of gravity waves being emitted by mass...

It's a non-starter I'm afraid. Gravity is caused by a concentration of energy. Even a massless E=hf photon travelling at c has a non-zero "active gravitational mass", and it is a wave, it isn't emitting waves.