This is contrary to everything I know about relativity and fundamental physics. See my mention of the photon above. Trap a photon in a mirror-box, and the mass of the system is increased, because "the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". A photon is a wave, and it is not throwing out gravity waves in all directions. Gravity waves are thought to arise from circling neutron stars and the like, they are transient field-variations. The field itself is not made up of waves moving in and out. With respect quantum_wave, I don't wish to discuss this much more.
At Rest with our Hubble view
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
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.
No problem with that.
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.
I will take another stab at the explanation.
First we have to come to the agreement that spacetime is non-euclidean. All the terms, x, y, z and t are squared. The thing that makes spacetime non-euclidean is that the time component has a different sign than the space components. This gives spacetime a hyperbolic nature. I take it that you understand this, though evidently you never apply this fact.
Nothing in your gif picture reflects the hyperbolic nature of the problem. Your gif is a completely flat, euclidean, (non)-representation of the problem. It is even more complicated by being a 2D+time projection of a problem that is 3D-time (note the change in sign). There is just no way that the gif has any relevance to the situation. It is even notable that you have represented the system horizontally which is an artifact of human eyesight and perception is not even a 3D but is instead stereoscopic. The gif is too flawed to ever have any meaning. There is no way to represent the problem meaningfully as a gif. Projection of a 3D-time system, down to a 2D+time representation is doomed to failure. The real problem behind the gif is that your mind is unable to come to grips with the hyperbolic nature of the problem. You are stuck in a euclidean mindset that is so strong you will never be able to break out of it. That is true of most if not all people. However, some people can understand that this mindset is wrong and thereby overcome the difficulty by realizing that we are like the people chained up in Plato's cave. Our perception of reality is just shadows on the wall.
Another interesting feature that impacts quantum wave's thread, is that gravity has this acceleration quality about it, but it is acceleration without change in distance (in the example of the clocks). Hubble expansion on the other hand is change in distance without any acceleration. To me these two symmetric examples scream projective geometry. In a recent lecture on cosmology and Hubble expansion by Susskind, he was asked about the apparent increase in kinetic energy by the distant matter (seen through the filter of time). A seeming violation of the conservation of energy. He replied that the apparent increase in kinetic energy (from our point of view) is a result dark energy being like a stored energy in a spring that is relaxing and converting the stored energy to kinetic energy. So when you point out that the equivalence acceleration of gravity does not result in an increase in any form of energy in the clock problem, that might not be totally accurate. Whatever the nature of gravity is, it might entail dark energy and the fact that we perceive the action in a dimensionally flattened way. And because energy involves space and time, which is hyperbolic, our perception of energy is likewise dimensionally flattened. There may be some component or dimension of energy that is not in our perceived reality. You might even say it is dark.
At this point I have to ask myself if I am a crank. I have all the attributes. I have a poor understanding of math and physics. I have a viewpoint that is, as you cranks say, non-mainstream. And I have a central theme to my theory that is a result of some misconception that I can't shake. Let's look at some other examples.
1) professor Laymen thinks that electromagnetic waves are actually electrons rather than photons.
2) Mazulu that can build a gravity beam from plans given him by space aliens.
3) Motor Daddy has too many oddities to mention them all, but he thinks that gravity has something to do with torque.
4) quantum wave thinks that gravity is somekind of wowion, an in-flowing and out-flowing of "wave energy" through an aether.
5) and you, that thinks that the speed of light is variable and due to some aether that Einstein supposedly postulated.
I probably left out a few of the actors in the cast. But you and I are definitely players. My only redeeming feature is that I know that I am acting in a play. You don't. That is why you can appear on a show about UFOs and think that you are revealing to the world the true nature of the universe rather than just play acting the fool. Time to take off my fools hat and get some work done. Good luck with your ideas.
Last edited:
LeGrange Points--Stabe and Unstable Equilirbium
Legrange;
1) Stable equlibrium---maintenance of left and right balance between two systems,
2) Nonstable equlibrium--loss of balance and a captured by one or the other system of left or right, in or out.
The minimalist drunkard walking the line of critical limited may choose to shift his mass this way or that way, to give the appearence that perfect/stable equilibrium between falling left and/or right.
1) the officers line is not straight i.e. all vectorial trajectories are arcs, tho they may appears as straight over short enough distances,
2) the minimalist drunkard may apppear stable via minimal oscillations between left and right, however, eventually the drunkard and or any mass--- at rest or not---will leave the demarked line, to more compeletely enter into one system or another.
True equlibrium is no motion at all i.e. a non-existent ergo conceptual see saw--- ergo energyless ---.
Stablized oscillations is LeGranges stable equilibrium so we have a real see saw where the two people shift there positions to give the appearence of a true equlibrium---- i.e. no motion at all ---or a stable equlirbrium where they have accounting balance between opposoing highs and lows.
Accountability is inherent to all finite systems and our Universe that is eternally disequlibrious, and is said to balance its negative( gravitational spacetime ) forces with all of the others. Entropic heat death scenarios take our knowns out to extremme and speculate on Universe's stated of existence at some future time/date.
That is to say, your ideas of energy density will reach maximal dispersal and I-- if not some others call ---one very large and very flat, least energy--- longest possible wave-length ---photon.
O!O
Where the exclamation point( ! ) is meant to represent the one, very flat, least energy photon at some heat death future date.
r6
Legrange;
1) Stable equlibrium---maintenance of left and right balance between two systems,
2) Nonstable equlibrium--loss of balance and a captured by one or the other system of left or right, in or out.
The minimalist drunkard walking the line of critical limited may choose to shift his mass this way or that way, to give the appearence that perfect/stable equilibrium between falling left and/or right.
1) the officers line is not straight i.e. all vectorial trajectories are arcs, tho they may appears as straight over short enough distances,
2) the minimalist drunkard may apppear stable via minimal oscillations between left and right, however, eventually the drunkard and or any mass--- at rest or not---will leave the demarked line, to more compeletely enter into one system or another.
True equlibrium is no motion at all i.e. a non-existent ergo conceptual see saw--- ergo energyless ---.
Stablized oscillations is LeGranges stable equilibrium so we have a real see saw where the two people shift there positions to give the appearence of a true equlibrium---- i.e. no motion at all ---or a stable equlirbrium where they have accounting balance between opposoing highs and lows.
Accountability is inherent to all finite systems and our Universe that is eternally disequlibrious, and is said to balance its negative( gravitational spacetime ) forces with all of the others. Entropic heat death scenarios take our knowns out to extremme and speculate on Universe's stated of existence at some future time/date.
That is to say, your ideas of energy density will reach maximal dispersal and I-- if not some others call ---one very large and very flat, least energy--- longest possible wave-length ---photon.
O!O
Where the exclamation point( ! ) is meant to represent the one, very flat, least energy photon at some heat death future date.
r6
Last edited:
No, no I don't think that.
No, obviously that is not true.
I have a clue.
Our view of the universe is different. I take it you are mainstream since I have never seen you post an idea, and to me the mainstream cannot answer the questions that I have set out to answer. In my view, alternative ideas are needed. Thus I have made a hobby of building my so called model, and I never refer to it as science, so you are ignorant of my claims. I call it my "so called model" to distinguish it from a scientific model. It is based on my hobby as a science enthusiast wherein I look for answers to basic questions within the popular science media and mainstream science, and where there is not yet a consensus on those answers I hypothesize about the answer as a hobby. Obviously I am not doing science; I have said that often enough for you to have seen it before, and you continue to pretend I am pretending to "do science". So you are ignorant of my disclaimers, and untruthful about the way I characterize my so called model.
As for civility, it is good for your health. This isn't directed to you, but is directed to the general audience; if you are or know people who are continually uncivil with others, you will see a generally unhealthy set of people, IMHO.
As usual, you are denying the mainstream knowledge in favor of your crackpot ideas. Nothing new here.
Simple lesson in GR for you , Duffield: GR is constructed on coordinate-INDEPENDENT formalism. Coordinate -dependent measurement (like the coordinate speed of light) are IRRELEVANT.
Yes, I have seen this claim of yours multiple times, it doesn't show in any mainstream construction of GR, did you make it up all by yourself?
LOL. Your fringe ideas are escalating, John.
What gives you the idea that the length (more correctly, the path of the photon) is more contracted for the clock situated lower in the gravitational well? In reality, it is exactly the other way around, I already pointed out this new fallacy of yours to you, Duffield.
Understood, but I hope you will be willing to share your knowledge in my direction from time to time. And to be plain, I really don't think you can resist responding to my posts, at least I hope not, but try if you think it has some benefit to you or if you just must. But also try not to carry on a flame war on my thread and ignore me while doing so, lol. I'll address the rest of your responses one by one, and assume you are giving me the last word, unless you choose to respond.
Better late than never.
True, at least two of the three shapes are always going to be wrong. I don't think GR says which one is right, but I respect the obvious evidence that the GR "shape" that seems to best fit the current observational evidence is almost flat. Agree?
And to the general intent of the thread, in my so called model, the shape is flat in unbounded potentially infinite space. And to repeat, space is never empty, and so there is a potentially infinite amount of energy density in the universe.
The mainstream view is different, but how does the mainstream answer the question, "What caused the initial expansion that we observe via the raw redshift data?" You have to say it doesn't, or you would respond saying the Big Bang started it all, right? No more evidence for the big bang being the beginning than for my hypothesis that there we preconditions to the big bang; space is infinite, filled infinitely with energy density, and has always existed. There is no observational evidence to the contrary of course, and the raw redshift data supports my view just a well as yours. I consider it an over reach for the consensus mainstream view to back track the redshift way back beyond the point where galaxies and even stars formed, and back to some mathematical singularity where it must stop because the math fails. Way to big an over reach in my opinion, when the alternative is that there was no need for an initial singularity if you consider various alternatives that make better sense, IMHO.
Last edited:
You just haven't seen me talking about it. The expression for a spacetime interval in flat Minkowski spacetime is given in various ways, such as this:
$$\Delta s^2 = c^2 \Delta t^2 - \Delta x^2 - \Delta y^2 - \Delta z^2$$
It's related to Pythagoras' theorem, used in the Simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity. We've got two parallel-mirror light clocks, one in front of us, the other travelling out-and-back. We see the light moving like this ǁ in the local clock and like this /\ in the moving clock. Treat one side of the angled path as a right-angled triangle and the hypotenuse is the lightpath where c=1 in natural units, the base is the speed v as a fraction of c, and the height gives the Lorentz factor γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²). If the moving mirror is going at .99c the Lorentz factor is 1/√(1-0.99²/1²) = 1/√(1-0.98) = 1/√0.02 = 1/0.142 = 7. So there's a sevenfold time dilation. Note that there's no literal time flowing in these clocks, just light moving back and forth between the mirrors. The invariant interval between the start and end events of our gedankenexperiment is there because the two light-path lengths are the same. It's that simple. Macroscopic motion comes at the cost of a reduced local rate of motion. Hence the t has a different sign. It's like Pythagoras' theorem a² = b² + c² because you work out the height of the triangle via b² = -c² + a². You can find Einstein's related Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation here.
That's right. Because the problem doesn't have a hyperbolic nature. You've simply got two parallel-mirror light clocks, and the lower one is going slower. That's it.Cheezle said:
Cheezle, that just won't do. See above, we use the parallel-mirror light clock in special relativity. I'm merely showing you them in general relativity.Cheezle said:
That's totally ducking the issue. You're slipping into denial. Where's your response to what I said about your "length contraction" causing the lower clock to go faster? Just look at the gif, look at what Einstein said, and give priority to evidence rather than abstraction.Cheezle said:
All points noted.Cheezle said:
I've given the links. There's no "supposedly" about it.Cheezle said:
Why thank you Cheezle. But they aren't my ideas. They are Einstein's. And I presume that you have given up trying to explain the gif.Cheezle said:
No, I'm saying "the mainstream" is wrong and Einstein was right.
No they aren't. Don't be so dismissive. You know full well that the coordinate speed of light varies in a gravitational field. And you know what Einstein said repeatedly about the SR postulate? And you failed miserably at tackling the gif. All thus is absolutely relevant to our little discussion.Tach said:
No. I got it from The Other meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close. And note varying speed of light papers on arXiv. I'm not some "my theory" guy. I'm just well-read.Tach said:
They aren't my ideas, and they aren't fringe, because they originate from Einstein.Tach said:
I don't hold that idea. Cheezle referred to gravity as being equivalent to acceleration, and I explained that it wasn't exactly equivalent to acceleration, and pointed out the consequences.Tach said:
And you are wrong. It isn't the other way around at all. The distance between the two mirrors doesn't increase. What will you say next? That the distance between Earth and Venus magically increases if the Sun gets in the way? That the distance between the two mirrors at an event horizon is infinite? Tach, this is getting embarrassing.Tach said:
That will be my pleasure, quantum_wave.
I'm afraid I can easily resist responding to your posts if they're in an "alternative theories" section. That carries a stigma by association.quantum_wave said:
Noted and agreed. Apologies for the unpleasantness we've seen on this thread.quantum_wave said:
LOL, Duffield, the mainstream and Einstein are saying the same thing, it is you who have been posting crackpottery all these years.
You are showing your crass ignorance, John, the GR formalism, as written by Einstein, is coordinate-independent.
Actually, I didn't fail, it is you who fail to understand the simple fact that the distance traveled by the photons in the two clocks are different.
Despite your posturing, you are crackpot, Duffield.
The equivalence principle says that you are full of hot air, John.
Not the distance between mirrors, Duffield, the distance traveled by the photons. You don't understand the difference. The photons don't travel in a straight line.
Agreed.
I take issue with the idea of an infinite universe, whether it's your model or the standard model of cosmology. This indicates that the universe started small, WMAP suggests it's flat, Planck corroborated this, as far as we know it's been expanding for 13.8 billion years. In addition we know the universe didn't collapse when it was small and dense. The GR stress-energy-momentum tensor features pressure, and dark energy was described as pressure by Phil Plait. If that "pressure" is counterbalanced at all locations because the universe is infinite, it cannot result in expansion.quantum_wave said:
Agreed. The standard model doesn't describe what caused the big bang or the expansion.quantum_wave said:
I have to beg to differ, and say that we observe raisins in the cake expansion which ought to tell us that the universe cannot be infinite.quantum_wave said:
I agree that a singularity is overreach, because I favour the original "frozen star" black-hole interpretation. In similar vein I favour a non-pointlike early universe. I don't favour things like the "tired light" theory that attempts to explain gravitational redshift. As I've said before, my understanding of GR is such that space just has to expand. It can't contract, and it can't stay static. It has to expand, because space has an innate pressure.quantum_wave said:
Well, if that formula does not look anything like a hyperbola to you, then I guess we are done here. No point beating a dead horse.
OK, I tried it. Oops, it seems that if expansion was the decompression of space, you would have some 'splanin' to do. Why is it just decompressing in the deep space between galaxies? How did it get compressed. How can anything come from nothing. If you want to be associated with the mainstream you have to be able to answer some difficult questions, or acknowledge that the answers require some as yet unknowns, and require some new discoveries.
Like I said to Brucep, I am looking, asking questions of the mainstream advocates, finding where they have no answers, and hypothesizing about ideas I find interesting in regard to 'splanin' things. Just a harmless hobbiest with questions you can't answer and answers that I find are internally consistent in my so called model, and not inconsistent with observational evidence and data.
While that is sadly true, like you say, that makes you an alternative kind of guy; you've been "outed" in the "cosmological preferences" community sense. And at the same time, it gives some unintended support to those of us who never claimed to be mainstreamers, and have therefore outed ourselves as non-mainstreamers for reasons including the incompatibility between GR and QM. How can both be right if one falsifies the other?
This sounds like a stretch, but a practical one, given that there is almost no distinction between the premise in my so called model that there is no empty space and all space is filled with energy density, and your view that space is energy. That is not grounds for you to object to my distinction that if you remove everything from space you are left with empty space, IMHO. It is close to just semantics.
I think both QM and GR, are right in their respective domains. Only thing is that they could not be unified as a single theory, though "string theories" are trying to unify them.
I have no problem with that because as I said, it is just semantics until real science sorts it out. Until then there are mainstream theories, and alternatives, and falsifying either in this case is not possible.
But the benefit of my so called model on this issue is that space does not have to date back to a beginning.
I have of course heard that position before, and if that is an adequate argument, the reconciliation of GR and QM depends of being able to maintain the respective domains after a quantum gravity solution or consensus is achieved. Somehow, I think that a quantum gravity solution will work in both the quantum and macro domains and GR will be thought of as a fine and accurate set of equations that quantify the quantum solution at the macro level, if you can understand my poor characterization.
YES. Quantum-Gravity should be able to explain both QM and GR. I think QG(quantum-gravity) is not yet discovered.