At Rest with our Hubble view

[hansda]

What exactly did you submit?

Along with this theory, i submitted my mathematical proof for the theory. I tried to publish this theory long ago in the year 2001-2002. That time i wasn't having much knowledge on 'latex formatting'. So, i expalined the mathematical proof for my theory in a 'literal way' than 'equation format'.

Have you got more than "Every action has got an unique technique."?

YES. The mathematical proof for this theory. This theory is my final conclusion.

 

[Aqueous Id]

[to brucep:] I have a clue. Our view of the universe is different.

In order for both statements to be consistent, it would be necessary to evaluate whether the clue did indeed come from observation or not; in other words a given clue could just as easily be falsely attributed to nature, which makes the post - clue gathering forensics all the more problematic.

I take it you [brucep] 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.

Here you are defining the methodology that strives to keep the clues straight as tacitly defective. Further is the question of how mainstream science is "asking the wrong questions" while you're on the right track. Complicating this is the vast wealth of people, systems and knowledge that encompasses the vague and sleight of disparagement, "mainstream". Problematics are now eating your lunch. I think there won't be even a crumb left to put under your 10X microscope.

In my view, alternative ideas are needed.

That's entirely different than looking for answers, which begins and ends with the facts, and rarely or never concerns itself with the sense of policy (or polity) that seems to influence your remarks.

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.

Maybe it would help to not refer to it as a model. How about something like "invention"?

I call it my "so called model" to distinguish it from a scientific model.

There is no singe scientific model. Anyway, you should first ask if your invention qualifies as a model at all.

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.

All good, but you can expect to get feedback from folks who learned some of the esoteric details of science by throwing themselves into it.

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".

The question here, and the nature of the answers by folks who have read actual science, is pretty technical. It's pretty hard to see you through any other lens other than the one that projects pseudoscience onto a science thread, and then effectively lobbies against the science.

So you are ignorant of my disclaimers, and untruthful about the way I characterize my so called model.

I think that just about anyone who passed a college entrance exam would come to a lot of the same conclusions brucep did--then you've got the graduates, post-grads, academicians, professionals, etc. "The Mainstream" who are going to just put you through the meat grinder. They can, because they know the laws pretty intimately. There's a lot of hands-on experience that goes with an education in science (in fact some of the most acclaimed contributors in history are known for their affinity to lab and field work. It's a pretty heavy trip--a hard ride--that Mainstream.

 

[quantum_wave]

In order for both statements to be consistent, it would be necessary to evaluate whether the clue did indeed come from observation or not; in other words a given clue could just as easily be falsely attributed to nature, which makes the post - clue gathering forensics all the more problematic.


Here you are defining the methodology that strives to keep the clues straight as tacitly defective. Further is the question of how mainstream science is "asking the wrong questions" while you're on the right track. Complicating this is the vast wealth of people, systems and knowledge that encompasses the vague and sleight of disparagement, "mainstream". Problematics are now eating your lunch. I think there won't be even a crumb left to put under your 10X microscope.


That's entirely different than looking for answers, which begins and ends with the facts, and rarely or never concerns itself with the sense of policy (or polity) that seems to influence your remarks.


Maybe it would help to not refer to it as a model. How about something like "invention"?


There is no singe scientific model. Anyway, you should first ask if your invention qualifies as a model at all.


All good, but you can expect to get feedback from folks who learned some of the esoteric details of science by throwing themselves into it.


The question here, and the nature of the answers by folks who have read actual science, is pretty technical. It's pretty hard to see you through any other lens other than the one that projects pseudoscience onto a science thread, and then effectively lobbies against the science.


I think that just about anyone who passed a college entrance exam would come to a lot of the same conclusions brucep did--then you've got the graduates, post-grads, academicians, professionals, etc. "The Mainstream" who are going to just put you through the meat grinder. They can, because they know the laws pretty intimately. There's a lot of hands-on experience that goes with an education in science (in fact some of the most acclaimed contributors in history are known for their affinity to lab and field work. It's a pretty heavy trip--a hard ride--that Mainstream.

Argumentative and pointless.

 

[Undefined]

No. It's very specific what it means. It's physics. I did it in geometric units where c=1. It means the clock measuring the tick rate is local to the measurement. For instance if we measured the speed of light in a local Laboratory frame at CERN the clock and meter stick we use in the experiment is in the Local Lab frame at CERN. For the remote coordinate measurements I'll use the HST for example. For remote measurements made with the HST the tick rate is recorded on a clock at the HST. The following may help. The curvature component of the metric is 2M/r.

The remote coordinate speed of light.

dr/dt=1-2M/r

r=2M at the event horizon. Substitute 2M for r and the remote coordinate speed of light is 0. Now do it for select r=nM making sure you do it for a very large r=nM. The tangent space tells us the manifold can be approximated as flat over a segment of an objects natural path over the manifold [gravitational field]. That tangent space is where the local physics is conducted. As long as the experimental results are not effected by gravity. That tangent segment in our solar system is about an AU. Near the black hole it's much smaller. If you do what I suggested you'll find out that the difference between the local physics and remote physics is exceedingly small in the weak field. For the strong field around the black hole it can be extreme such as the remote prediction that the speed of light is 0 at the event horizon while the local speed of light is c. The only requirement for invariance is the local measurement. Another way to think about this is the local measurement for spacetime curvature is very small. So small that we can approximate a flat spacetime where it disappears. The measurement/reckoning of the remote coordinate speed of light includes the spacetime curvature over the entire path. Both the local and remote measurements are equally valid. The local DIRECT measurements are frame invariant. The REMOTE measurements are frame dependent. I'm pretty sure Farsight has this all jumbled up because he doesn't have the tools or will to learn this science. We just have to put up with his bullshit nonsense. Or hit the bricks like Markus decided to do.

Thank you again, brucep, for your polite and prompt response. I am still very short of time, so please forgive my rushed reply to yours above...

Yes, I know already about "local" frames etc. That is exactly why I asked you the questions I did: about "whose 't' you are using to arrive at the "local measurements" when different radial "local tick rate" positions/altitudes in a gravity well give a differing "absolute tick count" because 'the second" is different for each locality.

Can you not see that, if the "t" count "absolute value" of the 't' term varies between "local frames/measurements" at different "local frames" up/down a gravity well, then some other term in your equations must change accordingly to always arrive at the 'invariant c=1' calculated measurement" result for each different frame?

This is why I naively observe that:

-If the 'time' for a given 'standard system' regular motion rate (ie, a given light clock) is not invariant, as we observe;

-And if, as you imply, the space (not 'space-time', but space only) SR/GR defined "locally infinitesimal distance' reference frame 'd' value is invariant between all given "local frames" at all "local" altitude positions above the Earth's surface;

-Then the 'actual' (not theoretically assumed) speed of light values must be affected in order to compensate for the varying 't' used in your same equation for each different local frame 'calculated 'c' to come out as 'invariant c'.

If not, then the calcuated c would not always be equal to '1' or remain 'unitary' as assumed for your mathematical treatment using 'variable t' values for each local conditioned space environment affecting the local clock tick count values 'absolutely and Empirically' and not just theoretically assumed to be 'the same t' values' as you seem to do in your analytical construct above. Yes?

Thanks again, brucep. Back tomorrow.

 

[brucep]

Argumentative and pointless.

That's you dude. Except I'm going to add intellectually dishonest to a fault. 'Id' is a extremely well thought person with good leadership ability. If he said that about me I'd be reviewing my behavior in an attempt to make improvement.

 

[quantum_wave]

That's you dude. Except I'm going to add intellectually dishonest to a fault. 'Id' is a extremely well thought person with good leadership ability. If he said that about me I'd be reviewing my behavior in an attempt to make improvement.

You and ID can say what you want. I run interesting and discussion oriented threads, and am not embarassed with who I am and what I'm doing. Your opinion means nothing to me after the opinions of me that you have posted. As for ID, he is not interested in discussion or he would have answered my earlier response to him, but he would prefer to post about what he finds wrong with me. Too bad you guys don't like it :shrug:. Get lost. I won't respond to any more of your off topic rants.

 

[brucep]

Thank you again, brucep, for your polite and prompt response. I am still very short of time, so please forgive my rushed reply to yours above...

Yes, I know already about "local" frames etc. That is exactly why I asked you the questions I did: about "whose 't' you are using to arrive at the "local measurements" when different radial "local tick rate" positions/altitudes in a gravity well give a differing "absolute tick count" because 'the second" is different for each locality.

Can you not see that, if the "t" count "absolute value" of the 't' term varies between "local frames/measurements" at different "local frames" up/down a gravity well, then some other term in your equations must change accordingly to always arrive at the 'invariant c=1' calculated measurement" result for each different frame?

This is why I naively observe that:

-If the 'time' for a given 'standard system' regular motion rate (ie, a given light clock) is not invariant, as we observe;

-And if, as you imply, the space (not 'space-time', but space only) SR/GR defined "locally infinitesimal distance' reference frame 'd' value is invariant between all given "local frames" at all "local" altitude positions above the Earth's surface;

-Then the 'actual' (not theoretically assumed) speed of light values must be affected in order to compensate for the varying 't' used in your same equation for each different local frame 'calculated 'c' to come out as 'invariant c'.

If not, then the calcuated c would not always be equal to '1' or remain 'unitary' as assumed for your mathematical treatment using 'variable t' values for each local conditioned space environment affecting the local clock tick count values 'absolutely and Empirically' and not just theoretically assumed to be 'the same t' values' as you seem to do in your analytical construct above. Yes?

Thanks again, brucep. Back tomorrow.

Undefined. The tick rate in a clocks local proper frame will always be the same. The length of an object will always be the same in the local proper frame. Measurements made in the local proper frame are invariant because they're direct measurements conducted in the frame of what's being measured. The physics of the local proper frame is the same everywhere in the universe. Measurement for remote coordinate frames can be different with a change in remote coordinates. That's why they're frame dependent. Everything you're concerned with is resolved by the definition of the frame. The fact these frame dependent observations exist is because this is a relativistic universe. Since they exist we need a transformation equation to tell what the measurement is in the local proper frame. The invariant measurement which is the same regardless what part of the universe the measurement occurs. The invariant length of a specific 2x4 is the same regardless where the local proper frame measurement is conducted.

 

[brucep]

You and ID can say what you want. I run interesting and discussion oriented threads, and am not embarassed with who I am and what I'm doing. Your opinion means nothing to me after the opinions of me that you have posted. As for ID, he is not interested in discussion or he would have answered my earlier response to him, but he would prefer to post about what he finds wrong with me. Too bad you guys don't like it :shrug:. Get lost. I won't respond to any more of your off topic rants.

You don't respond when I explain it to you explicitly. I could care less about reading your comments since it's generally your style of bullshit. I don't like it because you're full of crap and it's tiresome explaining science to folks who really only care about science beyond there own misconceptions and bullshit.

 

[quantum_wave]

You don't respond when I explain it to you explicitly. ...

I must have missed that, but at this point it is moot.

 

[quantum_wave]

Again, I request the moderator to move the thread to Alternative Theories, and my posts assume that action will be forthcoming.

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.

The massless photon fits a set of theories, but the theories that it fits require it to be massless or the greater theory falls apart. Photons having mass in my so called model also accommodates the wave nature of photons that we observe for the reason that it has a standing wave nature; standing waves have an inflowing component and an out flowing component; the out flowing component is the emitted spherical wave.

Check Cheezle's video on the quantum nature of
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3085968&viewfull=1#post3085968
My response to that video described the nature of the photon particle in my so called model. It is consistent with the quantum concept of a specific number of quanta emitted by an electron and with the decreasing mass of the electron after emitting a photon. It is consistent with my hypothesis about the explanation of how a single photon can go through either slit, causing the interference patten. My disclaimer about my so called model being a hobby is common knowledge, and my hypotheses are not presented in any scientific way; simply ideas for discussion.

Hope nobody is offended by this response .

 

[brucep]

I guess I am going to have to beat this dead horse some more. I can't help myself. Here is your formula.

$${s^2} = {t^2} - {x^2} - {y^2} - {z^2}$$

I am doing to dimensionally flatten to 2 dimensions (x and t) for simplicity. x,y and z are just normal 3-space so it does not change the principles.

$${s^2} = {t^2} - {x^2}$$

If we solve for s (spacetime distance) we get

$$s = \sqrt {{t^2} - {x^2}} $$

Wolfram Alpha evaluates this as an infinite cone. (sound familiar? light cone?)
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=t^2=s^2+x^2 If we plot all points of equal spacetime distance we get

$$1 = \sqrt {{t^2} - {x^2}} $$ where $$s = 1$$

This evaluates to a hyperbola. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1=(t^2-x^2)^1/2
Which means that time and 3-space distance have a spacetime relationship that is non-euclidean (hyperbolic). The pythagorean theorem has no ability to tell us about spacetime distance from time and 3-space distance.

But let's look a little more. We can also determine that

$${t^2} = {s^2} + {x^2}$$ (also an infinite cone) If we look at all points of equal time, say where

$$t = 1$$ we get $$1 = \sqrt {{s^2} + {x^2}} $$

which evaluates to a circle. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1=(s^2+x^2)^1/2+ Which means that 3-space distance and spacetime distance have a pythagorean or euclidean relationship. We can use it to calculate the time from the relation between 3-space distance and spacetime distance.

And finally,

$${x^2} = {t^2} - {s^2}$$

which also evaluates to an infinite cone. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=t^2=s^2+x^2 If we look at all points with equal 3-space distance (say x=1) we see that

$$1 = \sqrt {{t^2} - {s^2}} $$

which is also a hyperbola. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+=+(t^2-s^2)^1/2 For all equal 3-space distance points (as in a sphere) we see that the time and spacetime distance have a hyperbolic relationship and the pythagorean theorem will not aid us in calculating 3-space distance from time and 3-space distance.

The difference between a circle and a hyperbola is just a change of sign. So you see Farsight, the fact that you did not know about the hyperbolic nature of spacetime is a reflection of how deeply you have considered all of this. Which is not very deep.

Good post. That's the simple metric of flat spacetime. If you look in the first chapter of Exploring Black Holes this metric and Noether's theorem provide a path of derivation for the relativistic energy equation.

Tau = (t^2 - s^2)^1/2

 

[Aqueous Id]

You and ID can say what you want. I run interesting and discussion oriented threads,

I wasn't aware that you were running anything. Did you just buy the board or what? I didn't get that memo. You may consider yourself interesting, but this thread is full of ludicrous commentary, mixed with interventions from the usual handful of folks who have actually bothered to read physics.

and am not embarassed with who I am and what I'm doing.

It's considered healthy to feel humility, if not remorse, when circumstances call for it.

Your opinion means nothing to me after the opinions of me that you have posted.

You were using 'mainstream' in the implicitly disparaging context. You went on to describe yourself as a hobbyist. How does someone who is just playing around feel powerful enough to dismantle the work of a million experts? This would be one of those occasions when it would be healthy to feel some humility, if not remorse.

As for ID, he is not interested in discussion or he would have answered my earlier response to him,

I'm not aware there was a pending post for me to answer. So why didn't you just post it here?

but he would prefer to post about what he finds wrong with me.

I other words I questioned your logic and motives, and your rationale for juxtaposing 'mainstream' and 'hobbyist'. Why not just say 'expert' and 'unqualified'?

Too bad you guys don't like it :shrug:. Get lost.

Aha. So you're encouraging us to participate in 'your' thread. I dunno about that. You're being pretty snarky. But thanks for the invite.

I won't respond to any more of your off topic rants.

There is nothing off topic about responding to a post in a direct and frank manner. I'm surprised you think there is. Or seem to. That's OK, be defensive - whatever floats your boat. This is all about letting it all hang out, nothing to be embarrassed about.

 

[Undefined]

Thanks again brucep for your polite response. Taking a few minutes break for early afternoon tea so I thought I'd check in, and so, briefly...

I have bolded some sections of your post above which I believe are the point of cross-purpose exchanges and mis-understandings, and will briefly concentrate on them in the time I have at hand:

Undefined. The tick rate in a clocks local proper frame will always be the same. The length of an object will always be the same in the local proper frame. Measurements made in the local proper frame are invariant because they're direct measurements conducted in the frame of what's being measured. The physics of the local proper frame is the same everywhere in the universe. Measurement for remote coordinate frames can be different with a change in remote coordinates. That's why they're frame dependent. Everything you're concerned with is resolved by the definition of the frame. The fact these frame dependent observations exist is because this is a relativistic universe. Since they exist we need a transformation equation to tell what the measurement is in the local proper frame. The invariant measurement which is the same regardless what part of the universe the measurement occurs. The invariant length of a specific 2x4 is the same regardless where the local proper frame measurement is conducted.

Yes, I already long ago understood all that you have said above, which is why my naive questions about some of your statements/assertions remain necessary, as follows....

The tick rate in a clocks local proper frame will always be the same. The length of an object will always be the same in the local proper frame.

This naively sounds glibly passing over the actual situation, because while the proper length of a 2x4 will always be the same, the same cannot be said of the proper tick rate....simply because the local frame tick rate varies from location to location, which, as I have already pointed out, is empirically observed and not just an assumption of the kind you have repeated which ignores empirical observations regarding tick rate/count 'measured values' at each altitude/state compared to previous/other altitude/states of the same clock.

So it naively appears as an 'article of faith' assertion for this continuing to connect 'proper measurements' of two totally logically and physically disconnected properties (ie, proper length absolute value and proper tickrates/counts absolute value within each of many proper/local frame a body/clock is situated).

It is an empirical fact that both the proper length is "always the same", but it is also an empirical fact that the proper tickrate varies from position to position changes (in altitude) for any given light clock. So as a 'pair' of measured properties for each frame at different locations, the two proper properties are not a 'compound invariant'; but merely one (proper length) and the other (proper tickrate/count) are obviously properties qualitatively disconnected from each other; ie, one invariant and the other not so.

Before you read further and comment, do you understand what I am trying to get across; ie, that one invariant 'proper' property (length) does not automatically make another 'proper' property (tickrate/count) an invariant also?

The physics of the local proper frame is the same everywhere in the universe.

Yes, agreed. This was never at issue. However, you seem to think that such a situation justifies you in asserting that a given light clock's proper tickrate/count at differing GR altitude/states is "the same". This is obviously empirically proven not so, hence just because the "physics is the same" it does not automatically follow or justify in any way the continuing assertion made by you (and others before you) that "proper tickrate/count is the same".

We must disconnect misleading "understandings" from the valid understandings. Namely disconnect the continuing confusion that just because "the physics is the same then the proper properties/values are also the same" etc. We must have regard for the actual proper properties/measurements like length and time rates/counts, irrespective of the physics used (as long as we apply that physics consistently). Moreover, we must also further disconnect the (valid) idea of "same proper length" from the (patently empirically false) idea of "same proper tickrate/count".
As for the rest about co-ordinate frames definitions and remote/local etc, that has nothing to do with the empirically observed behaviour/properties "absolute values" for proper tickrate/counts at differing GR altitudes, irrespective of the co-ordinate system abstractly employed for abstract "understandings" and "interpretations of the actual situation observed empirically.

I am only naively observing that some of what you say/assert is undisputed/valid; but some of it is not so, as just pointed out.

Gotta go! Thanks again, brucep, for your kind and honest responses. Much appreciated whether we agree or disagree on some things! Back tomorrow.

 

[Cheezle]

Good post. That's the simple metric of flat spacetime. If you look in the first chapter of Exploring Black Holes this metric and Noether's theorem provide a path of derivation for the relativistic energy equation.

Tau = (t^2 - s^2)^1/2

Thanks Bruce, the exercise has been very enlightening. On of these days I will get about reading that book you recommend. But I know that it will involve a lot of time and so have it on hold. But someday ... [Edit, actually I will start CH1 tonight.]

I think I know where Farsight made his mistake and it is somewhat subtle. There are 3 equations, one is about distance and the other is about time. The third is a statement about our 3-space.

1) $${s^2} = {c^2}{t^2} - {x^2} - {y^2} - {z^2}$$ is the spacetime distance equation and is hyperbolic.

2) $${t^2} = \frac{{{s^2} + {x^2} + {y^2} + {z^2}}}{{{c^2}}}$$ is the time equation and is euclidean.

3) $${x^2} + {y^2} + {z^2} = {c^2}{t^2} - {s^2}$$ is an equation that relates 3-space to the mysterious quantities of time (as a distance) and spacetime distance. This is where Tau pops in, as you mentioned. Very interesting subject.

Farsight made the statement that he could apply the pythagorean theorem to solve the distance equation. But what he failed to realize is that the steps of the process involved to do that are the same steps that change the distance equation into the time equation. So in effect he is really solving that time equation which is euclidean. That was a revelation to me. I do learn from these discussions.

It is also interesting to me is what the first 2 equations say.

1) The first says that spacetime distance is a hyperbolic composition of euclidean 3-space and a non-orthogonal dimension called time (represented as a distance). The time as space dimension is itself a euclidean composition of our normal 3-space and this idea of spacetime distance. I think I understand what that means.

2) The second equation is a little more surprising to me. It seems to say that time is a euclidean composition of 4 mutually orthogonal time-like dimensions. Three of these time-like dimensions have the directions of normal 3-space, and the 4th is something we call s which has a direction we can't understand.

3) The 3rd equation is also interesting. Euclidean 3-space is equivalent to hyperbolic composition of spacetime distance and time as a distance.

The key to the whole thing is the use of the $${{c^2}}$$ which can convert space to time and time to space, depending on how you use it. It is where the speed of light introduced as a scaler constant that relates space and time. That has to be done because all terms in the equation have to match dimensionally. That is probably where the word spacetime came from. The concept of spacetime must be transformed into a purely spacial or purely time-like statement to be consistent.

I think my original point is true, that spacetime distance (s) has a hyperbolic nature, but also time has a euclidean nature. Not that I think that Farsight will concede the point.

 

[Undefined]

This is all about letting it all hang out, nothing to be embarrassed about.

I for one found this statement ironically amusing. Many have been given 'little holidays', or even permabans, for doing that. What makes you "brave" enough to do it may have something to do with your reputation as "mainstream", and hence consider yourself "invulnerable" to the same standards applying to "others" who may also (in a perfect forum-world) wish to "let it all hang out" while trying to discuss the status quo without fear or favor from a different perspective, and so "hopefully safely" question that "mainstream" (as required by the scientific method)? There are "political safety" benefits to be had by "running with the orthodoxy herd". Some people are not part of a herd, so may be subject to more "double standard" attacks than you seem to think that you are, based on your above-quoted "brave" attitude about letting it all hang out----if you are "mainstream" no doubt you assume it is "safe" for you to do that; however, not so much for questioners of mainstream, as oft-proven by case history here and elsewhere, hey?).

Although I have to say that the situation has improved immensely since the days of "testing the fairness". Much better for all now, including the scientific method and scientific leading-edge probing/alternative discussion/advance. Let's just try to 'bury the baggage' and no hard feelings, everyone!

Good luck to you both, q-w, aq-id.

 

[brucep]

Thanks Bruce, the exercise has been very enlightening. On of these days I will get about reading that book you recommend. But I know that it will involve a lot of time and so have it on hold. But someday ... [Edit, actually I will start CH1 tonight.]

I think I know where Farsight made his mistake and it is somewhat subtle. There are 3 equations, one is about distance and the other is about time. The third is a statement about our 3-space.

1) $${s^2} = {c^2}{t^2} - {x^2} - {y^2} - {z^2}$$ is the spacetime distance equation and is hyperbolic.

2) $${t^2} = \frac{{{s^2} + {x^2} + {y^2} + {z^2}}}{{{c^2}}}$$ is the time equation and is euclidean.

3) $${x^2} + {y^2} + {z^2} = {c^2}{t^2} - {s^2}$$ is an equation that relates 3-space to the mysterious quantities of time (as a distance) and spacetime distance. This is where Tau pops in, as you mentioned. Very interesting subject.

Farsight made the statement that he could apply the pythagorean theorem to solve the distance equation. But what he failed to realize is that the steps of the process involved to do that are the same steps that change the distance equation into the time equation. So in effect he is really solving that time equation which is euclidean. That was a revelation to me. I do learn from these discussions.

It is also interesting to me is what the first 2 equations say.

1) The first says that spacetime distance is a hyperbolic composition of euclidean 3-space and a non-orthogonal dimension called time (represented as a distance). The time as space dimension is itself a euclidean composition of our normal 3-space and this idea of spacetime distance. I think I understand what that means.

2) The second equation is a little more surprising to me. It seems to say that time is a euclidean composition of 4 mutually orthogonal time-like dimensions. Three of these time-like dimensions have the directions of normal 3-space, and the 4th is something we call s which has a direction we can't understand.

3) The 3rd equation is also interesting. Euclidean 3-space is equivalent to hyperbolic composition of spacetime distance and time as a distance.

The key to the whole thing is the use of the $${{c^2}}$$ which can convert space to time and time to space, depending on how you use it. It is where the speed of light introduced as a scaler constant that relates space and time. That has to be done because all terms in the equation have to match dimensionally. That is probably where the word spacetime came from. The concept of spacetime must be transformed into a purely spacial or purely time-like statement to be consistent.

I think my original point is true, that spacetime distance (s) has a hyperbolic nature, but also time has a euclidean nature. Not that I think that Farsight will concede the point.

The 2nd Chapter of the book is free to download. The whole chapter is about spacetime curvature.

The 2nd component of the Schwarzschild solution to the Einstein Field Equations is the radial stretching component. Working a simple problem here will give an answer which can serve as an example of spacetime curvature. I use geometric units for everything. Everything is expressed as a length. IE: a solar mass = 1477m.

In geometric units

dr_shell = dr/(1-2M/r)^1/2

The 2nd component has a coordinate singularity at r=2M which is the event horizon.

dr_shell = dr/(1-2M/2M)^1/2 = dr/0 [This result is unphysical and the source of much confusion.]

To find the actual distance to r=2M, from remote bookkeeper coordinates, we can integrate the 2nd component and the following is the integral

dr_shell = [r^1/2(r-2M)^1/2 + 2M ln{r^1/2 + (r-2M)^1/2}]|r1 to r2

For this example

r=10M

M=1 solar mass = 1477 meters

Making the substitutions

dr_shell = [10M^1/2(10M-2M)^1/2 + 2M ln(10M^1/2 + {10M-2M}^1/2)]

= 12.52469M = 12.52469(1477m) = 18,498.9672m [reckoned from the remote coordinate frame at r=10M].

In the local proper frame the measurement is r=(10M-2M)= 8M = 8(1477m) = 11,816 meters.

The local proper frame measurement sums the distance an object falls from r=10M to the event horizon at r=2M. This path is approximately flat since all measurements are made locally along the path. For the most part the universe is very close to flat when the measurements are made along the natural path of an object in freefall. The remote observation reveals the spacetime curvature over the entire path of the object. In this case the remote path is almost 7000m further. This is why we refer to it as radial stretching. In the weak field the curvature is so small as to be irrelevant. In the strong field we need to account for relativistic effects. This is the curvature component of the metric.

2M/r

Think how you would graph both paths. In the weak field and in the strong field. Lay one on top of the other. See what it looks like.

 

[quantum_wave]

I for one found this statement ironically amusing. Many have been given 'little holidays', or even permabans, for doing that. What makes you "brave" enough to do it may have something to do with your reputation as "mainstream", and hence consider yourself "invulnerable" to the same standards applying to "others" who may also (in a perfect forum-world) wish to "let it all hang out" while trying to discuss the status quo without fear or favor from a different perspective, and so "hopefully safely" question that "mainstream" (as required by the scientific method)? There are "political safety" benefits to be had by "running with the orthodoxy herd". Some people are not part of a herd, so may be subject to more "double standard" attacks than you seem to think that you are, based on your above-quoted "brave" attitude about letting it all hang out----if you are "mainstream" no doubt you assume it is "safe" for you to do that; however, not so much for questioners of mainstream, as oft-proven by case history here and elsewhere, hey?).

Although I have to say that the situation has improved immensely since the days of "testing the fairness". Much better for all now, including the scientific method and scientific leading-edge probing/alternative discussion/advance. Let's just try to 'bury the baggage' and no hard feelings, everyone!

Good luck to you both, q-w, aq-id.

Rather than perpetuate the disdain, I'll respond to you by saying that he created a straw man about my dissing mainstream, put on a false defense, and then got all holy on us, lol.

If he wants to break his off topic nonsense out into another thread somewhere I'll consider responding point by point.

BTW, you are right on target regarding you response to Brucep.

 

[quantum_wave]

Note that this thread is pending moderator action to move it to Alternative Theories, and my responses are in accord with that action.

This is contrary to everything I know about relativity and fundamental physics.

I guess it offends a number of people for me to say that the mainstream does not answer all the questions I have. I familiarize myself with physics and theoretical physics, mainstream and alternative, and seek answers for myself when the scientific community has no answer or has inconsistent answers.

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".

I have not missed that point.

A photon is a wave, ...

It has wave-particle duality.

.. and it is not throwing out gravity waves in all directions.

Not in mainstream models, but I explained why I have a "so called" model; the mainstream models don't answer all of my questions, and when you build a so-called model you have to hypothesize about ways to answer those questions. If you include hypothetical answers to as yet unanswered or undiscovered physics, they quickly tend to diverge from the mainstream.

Gravity waves are thought to arise from circling neutron stars and the like, they are transient field-variations.

That works to account for the type of gravity waves that mainstream theory needs to explain observations and events that otherwise are contrary to the mainstream. Theory is that such a "transient field-variation" produces spherical waves that then traverse the medium of space at the speed of light, thus on a time delay. That accounts for the mainstream recognition of a time delay for such "transient" events, which would also include collisions in space that interrupt normal motion.

Otherwise the motion of objects, according to theory, respond instantly across distances of space to the curvature of spacetime. I'm just asking how the emission of such waves is not a normal characteristic of objects, and if all objects emit spherical gravitational waves that traverse the medium of space, then there is a huge amount of energy in space that is unaccounted for by the mainstream view.

The field itself is not made up of waves moving in and out. ...

That is one of my hypotheses, and not in agreement with the particular theories that you foster. It is a simple answer to how objects transmit information through space to which distant objects respond on a time delay basis, and is the reason why I discuss the time delay of gravity. See my earlier response to Aqueous Id, which included a brief exchange between Markus Hanke and me.

 

[Farsight]

...So you see Farsight, the fact that you did not know about the hyperbolic nature of spacetime is a reflection of how deeply you have considered all of this. Which is not very deep.

Cheezle, you can't explain the gif, I've considered it deeply, you've evaded it. The hyperbolic nature of SR Minkowski spacetime is nothing to do with why the GR lower clock runs slower.

 

[Farsight]

I think I know where Farsight made his mistake and it is somewhat subtle.

I haven't made any mistakes. You're clutching at straws to avoid facing up to the empirical fact that the lower clock goes slower. And when a clock goes slower, it's because the regular cyclic motion within that clock is going slower. Again, do not try to use abstraction to avoid facing up to the empirical evidence. And by the way, bruce is not being honest when he said yours is a good post. He knows full well that the SR expression for the invariant Lorentz interval does not apply to GR.

Undefined: your posts noted. Good stuff.