At Rest with our Hubble view

[Tach]

Thank you for that clarification, Tach. Understood.

You managed to understand? I pretty much doubt it.

How does your abstract mathematical "result" agree with the actual fixed distance between the mirrors?

I explained that as well. Though the distance between the mirrors if fixed, the path described by the photon is variable, longer for the photon deeper in the gravity well. The photon follows an arc of spiral, not a straight line. This explains why the clock deeper in the gravity well ticks slower.

Can you demonstrate empirically rather than theoretically that the distance between the mirrors has changed between upper and lower frame positions?

So, you understood nothing.

Unless you can demonstrate empirically that the already fixed relation distance between the mirrors has changed as you assume for your equations, then it remains abstraction and conjecture on your part, yes?

Nope, it remains an ingrained inability to understand physics on your part.

 

[Undefined]

You managed to understand? I pretty much doubt it.



I explained that as well. Though the distance between the mirrors if fixed, the path described by the photon is variable, longer for the photon deeper in the gravity well. The photon follows an arc of spiral, not a straight line. This explains why the clock deeper in the gravity well ticks slower.





So, you understood nothing.



Nope, it remains an ingrained inability to understand physics on your part.

Where is your empirical evidence that "The photon follows an arc of spiral, not a straight line" becomes effective enough to produce the change in the clock rate over such short distances between the same mirrors in the same clock in lower and upper frames separated by only a few meters in altitude?

 

[Tach]

Where is your empirical evidence that "The photon follows an arc of spiral, not a straight line."?

Any textbook on GR* teaches you that. You should try reading a textbook sometime.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Rindler: "Relativity: Special , General and Cosmological" , pp245-247.

 

[Undefined]

Any textbook on GR* teaches you that. You should try reading a textbook sometime.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Rindler: "Relativity: Special , General and Cosmological" , pp245-247.

You replied within one minute! Too quick. Please note the edit in my post which extended the question to effectiveness as distinct from principle involved. Thanks.

 

[Tach]

You replied within one minute! Too quick. Please note the edit in my post which extended the question to effectiveness as distinct from principle involved. Thanks.

You simply added more nonsense to your post. The effect is present even for a distance of a few centimeters. You should really try cracking open a book, I suggested a very accessible one for you in the previous post.

 

[Undefined]

You simply added more nonsense to your post.

Have you not read where brucep and many others point out that over a short enough distance the local frame is "essentially flat"? So the usual "GR curvature" assumptions/effects are insignificant? Hence can you demonstrate how the short effective distances between the mirrors in different altitudes change enough to affect the light reflection rates according to your curved "spiral path" argument?

 

[Tach]

Have you not read where brucep and many others point out that over a short enough distance the local frame is "essentially flat"? So the usual "GR curvature" assumptions/effects are insignificant?

Yes, I read. There is no such thing as "insignificant", differences in clocks rate have been detected experimentally over a distance of 30cm. On Earth. You sure that you don't want to take a class? Because, at this rate, you will never learn anything.

 

[Undefined]

Yes, I read. There is no such thing as "insignificant", difference in clock rate have been detected over a distance of 30cm. On Earth. You sure that you don't want to take a class? Because, at this rate, you will never learn anything.

Do you refer to the distance between the fixed mirrors, or between the overall clock in different altitude positions?

 

[Tach]

No, I am talking of the very short distance between the fixed mirrors, not between the overall clock in different altitude positions.

Doesn't matter. You are wasting a lot of time trolling, you could make much better use of your time taking a class.

 

[Undefined]

Doesn't matter. You are wasting a lot of time trolling, you could make much better use of your time taking a class.

It matters. If you are referring to the distance between the mirrors, then very short distances are essentially paths through "flat space" according to the mainstream literature.

 

[Tach]

It matters. If you are referring to the distance between the mirrors, then very short distances are essentially paths through "flat space" according to the mainstream literature.

Since you haven't cracked open a book on the subject, your above claim is nil. It is very simple: light clocks are not any different from atomic clocks. All clocks are affected the same exact way by the gravitational fields, hence light clocks follow the same exact physics rules as atomic clocks. przyk posted some pictures earlier, you should try finding his post, take a break from trolling and try learning some physics. His pictures tell you that , if the distance between mirrors is $$D$$ , then the amount of curvature is $$\theta=arctan \frac{gD}{2c^2}$$. This is NOT zero, as you claim. Moreover, as time progresses, the curvature of the spiral increases, so, for each bounce off the mirror, the photon path deviates from a straight line more. .

 

[Undefined]

Since you haven't cracked open a book on the subject, your above claim is nil. It is very simple: light clocks are not any different from atomic clocks. All clocks are affected the same exact way by the gravitational fields, hence light clocks follow the same exact physics rules as atomic clocks.

I'm sure they are. No problem. I too objectively observe that the energy-space environment in any given GR frame affects the processes going on therein.

I quote Markus Hanke in support of my above observation...

...curvature is energy.

So, Tach, it seems from your above reply that you agree with me that space is energy, and that the local space-energy density affects processes like light propagation and matter oscillation rates going on therein, and hence giving the observed 'time' rates which vary accordingly to give the "curved space-time" abstract modeling construct?

 

[Tach]

So, Tach, it seems from your above reply that you agree with me that space is energy, and that the local space-energy density affects processes like light propagation and matter oscillation rates going on therein?

You switched gears , now you jumped back to repeating the Farsight nonsense on the subject. I already disproved your above fringe claim earlier.

 

[Undefined]

You switched gears , now you are back to repeating the Farsight nonsense on the subject. I already disproved your above fringe claim earlier.

I do not 'repeat' anyone. That is my own long understood stance regarding the nature of the energy-space reservoir of all phenomenal changes in same we call the observable universe at all scales.

And I already responded to your "unsupported opinion" regarding my 'energy density' observations:
I asked you, but you did not straightforwardly answer yet, this question: "If the mainstream term Gravitational Potential is not referring to gravitational energy potentials, then what is it referring to?"

I would appreciate your answer at your earliest convenience, if you are so inclined. Thanks.

 

[quantum_wave]

You switched gears , now you jumped back to repeating the Farsight nonsense on the subject. I already disproved your above fringe claim earlier.

You didn't disprove anything. Or do you have no conception of how science works. Flasification requires repeatable emperical evidence. What you mean is that you want to believe you can falsifiy the arguments that energy density of an environment governs the speed of light through that environment by touting mathematical equations instead of evidence.

 

[Tach]

You didn't disprove anything. Or do you have no conception of how science works. Flasification requires repeatable emperical evidence. What you mean is that you want to believe you can falsifiy the arguments that energy density of an environment governs the speed of light through that environment by touting mathematical equations instead of evidence.

Nah, simply explaining basics available from any mainstream source (textbooks, classes) but I already know that the explanations are lost on hardened fringers like you, Farsight, Undefined.

 

[Tach]

I do not 'repeat' anyone.

You are repeating your own nonsense that you picked from Farsight.

 

[quantum_wave]

Nah, simply explaining basics available from any mainstream source (textbooks, classes) but I already know that the explanations are lost on hardened fringers like you, Farsight, Undefined.

Just to be clear, did you misspeak about disproving our hypothesis? Or did you think you did?

 

[Tach]

Just to be clear, did you misspeak about disproving our hypothesis? Or did you think you did?

Your "hypothesis" is nothing but pure crank stuff. The "authors", being cranks, will never admit to error.

 

[Undefined]

You are repeating your own nonsense that you picked from Farsight.

I have for many decades observed the universal phenomena from my own perspective. Farsight from his. Others from theirs. If some aspects coincide across these perspectives it is logically because the underlying real physics is the same and all paths that have regard to empirical fact (not just abstract 'fact') will lead to similar conclusions. My own perspective and explanations form a complete t.o.e. though, as opposed to the partial theories of all persuasions which are being discussed here so far.

In any case, your "arguments" refute nothing so far when it comes to something empirically observed and so far only described abstractly by you and what you think "mainstream says".

Your own misunderstanding of what "mainstream says" and (more importantly) doesn't say seems to lead you to make all these well known nebulous claims to having "corrected" something or someone, even when you cannot answer my straightforward question (see my post #774) in reply to one of your latest unsupported claims dismissing my "energy density" observations as "nonsense".

So how about just answering that question in my post #774 so that we can see what's what on that aspect?