At Rest with our Hubble view

[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. 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. .

Then that should mean the photon would soon 'pop out of the bottom" of the mirror system in a light clock with vertical mirrors? Has this been observed? Unless it has, then your assumptions/equations do not represent the reality.

Like I said, I go by the mainstream claim that over very short distances the "curvature" is essentially nil, and so cannot account for the observed significant slowing of the rate. Brucep and other mainstreamers have claimed so many times.

Which is why the differing gravitational potential "energy density" in that local frame space is the logical effective factor in the clock tick rate differences between differing altitude GR frames.

Which is why I again refer you to another mainstreamer (Markus Hanke) comment:

"curvature is energy!

I agree with Markus on that. And since we all agree that physics is the same for every frame, then the common denominator for variation ("curvature" etc) of the observed effects must be the local frame energy density affecting all clock processes therein. Yes?

 

[Tach]

That would mean the photon would 'pop out of the bottom" of the mirror system in a light clock with vertical mirrors?

Yes, eventually.

Has this been observed? Unless it has, then your assumptions/equations do not represent the reality.

Back to trolling. You can observe it if you wait a little.

Like I said, I go by the mainstream claim that over very short distances the "curvature" is essentially nil.

You have nothing to do with mainstream, based on your posts you are a bona fide crank.

the observed effects must be the local frame energy density affecting all clock processes therein. Yes?

You desperately want me to agree with your fringe ideas. The answer is "NO".

 

[Undefined]

Yes, eventually.



Back to trolling. You can observe it if you wait a very long time. I already showed you the calculations but you obviously can't follow, so there is little point. At each iteration the beam drops by roughly $$\frac{gD}{c}$$ where $$D$$ is the distance between mirrors. If the mirrors are $$H$$ tall, the photon will "fall off" after $$\frac{Hc}{gD}$$. If you take $$H=D$$, then, it will take $$\frac{c}{g} \approx 3*10^7 s$$. This is is about 1 year, you can try running the experiment by yourself. This should keep you busy and away from trolling this forum.



You have nothing to do with mainstream, based on your posts you are a bona fide crank.



You desperately want me to agree with your fringe ideas. The answer is "NO".

So, are you claiming that it has been observed that the beam "travels down" and pops out in the mainstream light clock experiments? If so, references (relevant and clear references, not nebulous or irrelevant references) to such empirical observations?

And do you agree or disagree with Markus Hanke when he says "...curvature is energy"?

 

[Tach]

So, are you claiming that it has been observed that the beam "travels down" and pops out in the mainstream light clock experiments?

No one is so naive to have to effectively wait a year to see what happens. You are a prime candidate, especially if it keeps you from trolling this forum.
Why don't you go away for (a long) while and try the experiment? You might learn something.

 

[Undefined]

No one is so naive to have to effectively wait a year to see what happens. You are a prime candidate, especially if it keeps you from trolling this forum.
Why don't you go away for (a long) while and try the experiment? You might learn something.

So there is no experimental evidence to support your contentions? If the mirrors used are very squat compared to their separation distance, then it wouldn't take that long. In any case, it shouldn't take very long to observe/measure if the beam has or has not crept down the mirrors to some degree even without waiting until it dropped out? I'm surprised no mainstream experiment has been run to test that very important question.

And you didn't answer my question: Do you agree or disagree with Markus Hanke when he says...

...curvature is energy!

 

[Farsight]

True, but if you will give me one small point of clarification, I intend for this thread to distinguish between our Hubble view, and the greater universe. What you just said applies to our observable universe and the parts beyond that are causally connected to our Big Bang. I mentioned to you above that my so called model address questions that the mainstream theories don't address, and preconditions to the Big Bang is a good example.

Fair enough. As far as I know big bang cosmology doesn't address the universe before expansion commenced, but it is associated with claims saying that the universe started as a point singularity, or was created via a "quantum fluctuation". Some respected figures step from evidential physics supported by observation to hypothetical assertions that aren't. I think it's good to challenge the latter, but if you're going to challenge the whole thing via a totally different model, you need to ensure that everything you propose fits with the evidence.

I also mentioned that when I hypothesize about preconditions, I am considering various precondtions and choosing the hypothesis that I personally feel is most likely.

No problem with that.

I also acknowledge that when I simply hypothesize some set of preconditions I am not pretending to do science, another straw man often used by some.

Maybe you should dwell on that. Somebody somewhere needs to do science to validate a hypothesis.

Now the straw man that was invoked by Aqueous Id is that I am dissing mainstream views by questioning things like "the beginning", preconditions, and unknowns and unknowables. That is an opinion that you appear to share, perhaps.

Only in part. I have no problem with you questioning things like "the beginning" etc. But I'd say you ought to try to be discerning about mainstream views that are supported by empirical evidence and those that aren't. For example Hawking radiation is mainstream. But there's no evidence for it. And when you read up on it you see things like negative-energy particles.

In my defense, a complete cosmology should address the issue of a beginning. We must at least recognize that there are differences in the standard cosmology, and alternatives, when the alternatives address the question of a beginning. There is no mention of a beginning in BBT. That is automatically a difference, and it is insincere to say that I am dissing mainstream by discussing the issue of a "beginning" vs. "always existed". There must be thousands of reputable mainstream science professionals that contemplate the nature of the universe and whether it all began with the Big Bang.

I'm sure there are.

Often I get the response that, 1) We can't know the answer, 2) BBT is the best we can do, and 3) if GR says there is no "before" the Big Bang, problem solved. Where do you stand?

I think BBT is mainly correct, but that you can't get something from nothing. Which means the universe in some shape or form has always existed. And that's about as far as I can go. I'm stuck, and I can't see how I'll ever have any evidence to take it further. This is why I prefer to stick with the simple things, like gravity and the nature of matter.

 

[Farsight]

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.

Tach, this is getting embarrassing. We all know that light curves in a gravitational field. So to improve the gif we would set each mirror back at a slight angle away from the vertical, and draw the path of the light-pulse with a slight curve. But in addition we also know that this curvature is not Riemann curvature. Again see post #158. Follow the link to the plot of gravitational potential. There's no bowling ball and this is a Newtonian picture, but it's good enough. Note that the curvature you can see in the plot relates to Riemann curvature, or Weyl curvature if you prefer, related to tidal force. Zoom in on a portion of it. There's no detectable curvature, but there is a slope. In similar vein there is no detectable tidal force in the room you're in, but things do fall down. If you measure g at the floor, you get the same result as when you measure g at the ceiling. Because Riemann curvature is not detectable, you know that the slight curve followed by the light-pulses in the two mirrors is the same slight curve. And yet the lower clock still runs slower than the upper clock. And moreover we plotted the Riemann curvature using clock-rate differences. That ought to be enough to distinguish cause and effect to you. The light curves because of the slope, not because your plot of clock rates is curved. This slope represents a gradient in gravitational potential and spatial energy-density, not curved spacetime. Do please try to understand this instead of digging yourself deeper in denial.

 

[quantum_wave]

...

Agreed. The standard model doesn't describe what caused the big bang or the expansion.

Yes, my point exactly. Most who care agree that the entire big bang arena, i.e. everything that is causally connected to the big bang, clearly shows, via the raw redshift data, that the galaxies and galaxy groups within that arena are generally all moving away from each other; clear observational evidence. Many seem ready to accept the concept that our arena is all there is, and that is one of the things that I started asking questions about; you quickly find that the forum communities don't want that conversation. Is it better to hide our heads in the sand than to address the physics necessary to produce a cause for what we observe?

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.

No. It tells us that our big bang arena is finite. It is observed to be "expanding", and I think it is perfectly logical to think that the energy density of the arena continually declines as it increases in size.

But if you take that logic, and then allow a concept that there was space and energy before the big bang, then as our big bang arena expands, it is encountering and encompassing energy from outside of it every inch of the way, form the very first instant of expansion.

The total energy density of the arena declines because of the extremely high energy density of the hot dense energy ball at the instant of the big bang, whether the size was infinitesimal as in BBT or a million light years across, vs. the very low relative energy density of space surrounding the big crunch at that same instant. The "raisins in the cake" analogy only applies to the expanding arena. The raisins, aka the galaxies and galaxy groups are clearly separating from each other.

There are opposing forces of gravity and separation momentum (dark energy if you like). The "clumping" that began when particles first formed was strongest in the close quarters of the early particle formation "epoch". As the clumps of particles eventually grew, gas clouds formed and stars, then galaxies formed, the separation momentum imparted to the first particles that were moving apart when they formed in the expanding arena was conserved, and thus the galaxies have separation momentum, in my so called model. No new space is being added to the universe, more space is being encompassed by the expanding arena.

 

[quantum_wave]

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

Not true; in fact it is obvious that you are unable to back your claims. Your repeated ad homs, claims of disproving things, and an obvious uncivil contempt for opposition are signs of a comedian trolling for the laughs he gets by getting away with such crap.

 

[PhysBang]

Tach, this is getting embarrassing. We all know that light curves in a gravitational field. So to improve the gif we would set each mirror back at a slight angle away from the vertical, and draw the path of the light-pulse with a slight curve. But in addition we also know that this curvature is not Riemann curvature. Again see post #158. Follow the link to the plot of gravitational potential. There's no bowling ball and this is a Newtonian picture, but it's good enough. Note that the curvature you can see in the plot relates to Riemann curvature, or Weyl curvature if you prefer, related to tidal force. Zoom in on a portion of it. There's no detectable curvature, but there is a slope. In similar vein there is no detectable tidal force in the room you're in, but things do fall down. If you measure g at the floor, you get the same result as when you measure g at the ceiling. Because Riemann curvature is not detectable, you know that the slight curve followed by the light-pulses in the two mirrors is the same slight curve. And yet the lower clock still runs slower than the upper clock. And moreover we plotted the Riemann curvature using clock-rate differences. That ought to be enough to distinguish cause and effect to you. The light curves because of the slope, not because your plot of clock rates is curved. This slope represents a gradient in gravitational potential and spatial energy-density, not curved spacetime. Do please try to understand this instead of digging yourself deeper in denial.

Please show the math.

 

[Cheezle]

I have been losing sleep over Farsight's clock problem. Actually it more that I am starting to understand all this GR stuff. It is exciting in a way. I think I can now explain Farsight's clock picture. Keep in mind I don't have all the lingo down and so my explanation might sound clunky at times.

First I have broken the problem into 3 parts. Actually I am going to call them transformations. $${T_{newton}}$$ is Newtonian gravity which involves center of mass and inverse square law etc, $${T_{warp}}$$ is warped space which is the bowling ball on the rubber sheet and $${T_{sr}}$$ which is special relativity. More accurately, $${T_{newton}}$$ defines the gravitational field. $${T_{warp}}$$ applies a stretching of space in the radial direction. And $${T_{sr}}$$ is Special Relativity. The first two of these ($${T_{newton}}$$ and $${T_{warp}}$$) are not very important to the problem in this simplified explanation. They only account for the fact that a straight horizontal light clock is like a chord on the arc of constant gravity. A tidal effect. It has a negligible impact on the problem due to the tiny measurements involved. The important thing is $${T_{sr}}$$ which is about acceleration and velocity and time dilation and length contraction.

Gravity is equivalent to acceleration via the equivalence principle. So working backwards, for the two clocks to behave as if they are in free space traveling at different velocities, the equivalent acceleration of gravity has to act like a difference in velocities of the two clocks in SR. I have not actually figured this small detail out yet, but know in my gut that it is true. It is probably related to the fact that acceleration has a squared term and in SR all the terms are squared too. Some how some factors have to cancel and the result for SR is two different spacetime velocities for the two clocks. It may have to do with this equation $${c^2}{t^2} = {s^2} + {x^2} + {y^2} + {z^2}$$ and that would agree with a velocity in a spacetime direction that is not x, y or z. So gravity really is an acceleration in this dimension involved in time and not noticeable in the normal 3-space directions.

If someone can supply this key piece of the puzzle then the problem is solved. If not then Farsight is right. I will not expect Farsight to participate since he has no incentive. I will work on it tonight if I get a chance.

 

[quantum_wave]

Please show the math.

Excuse my taking the liberty to ask this, but isn't it true that the math conveys the concept by converting it into an established language that physicists use to quantify their view of the concept? If so, can't any concept be expressed mathematically? Then isn't it reasonable to expect that if the concepts differ that the math will differ, even if the math works perfectly? What am I missing here? It is just that Forsight has not produced math that agrees with your math, or hasn't produced the math that works perfectly for his preferred concept, or what?

 

[Tach]

Tach, this is getting embarrassing.

...for you. This is the norm.

We all know that light curves in a gravitational field.

Actually, YOU don't, this is something well known about you, Duffield. You made a name for yourself on the physics websites.

So to improve the gif we would set each mirror back at a slight angle away from the vertical, and draw the path of the light-pulse with a slight curve. But in addition we also know that this curvature is not Riemann curvature. Again see post #158. Follow the link to the plot of gravitational potential. There's no bowling ball and this is a Newtonian picture, but it's good enough. Note that the curvature you can see in the plot relates to Riemann curvature, or Weyl curvature if you prefer, related to tidal force. Zoom in on a portion of it.

You are throwing around terms but it is well known that you are totally ignorant is to what those terms mean, Duffield.

There's no detectable curvature, but there is a slope.

LOL, you are getting funnier and funnier. Any textbook (read the chapter on "photon orbits in a gravitational field") points out your fallacy. You are grasping at straws, making up "stuff". This is your standard approach when you've been proven wrong.

In similar vein there is no detectable tidal force in the room you're in, but things do fall down. If you measure g at the floor, you get the same result as when you measure g at the ceiling.

This is, of course, FALSE, Duffield since $$g=g(r)=\frac{GM}{r^2}$$. You are getting really desperate.

Because Riemann curvature is not detectable, you know that the slight curve followed by the light-pulses in the two mirrors is the same slight curve. And yet the lower clock still runs slower than the upper clock.

...because the photons follow a longer trajectory in the lower clock, I already explained that to you and to your sidekick (Undefined) several times. You have a hard time comprehending , Duffield.

And moreover we plotted the Riemann curvature using clock-rate differences.

Who is "we" , Duffield? You were never able to produce any math.

That ought to be enough to distinguish cause and effect to you. The light curves because of the slope, not because your plot of clock rates is curved.

Repeating your fringe ideas doesn't make them right, John. Nice try. Next.

This slope represents a gradient in gravitational potential and spatial energy-density, not curved spacetime.

Same crank claims as Undefined and quantum-wave. You now have two followers, Duffield. Too bad that they are just as cranky as you.

Do please try to understand this instead of digging yourself deeper in denial.

LOL.

 

[Tach]

Excuse my taking the liberty to ask this, but isn't it true that the math conveys the concept by converting it into an established language that physicists use to quantify their view of the concept? If so, can't any concept be expressed mathematically? Then isn't it reasonable to expect that if the concepts differ that the math will differ, even if the math works perfectly? What am I missing here? It is just that Forsight has not produced math that agrees with your math, or hasn't produced the math that works perfectly for his preferred concept, or what?

It is just that your idol, Farsight never produces any math whatsoever. And that his claims are pure crackpot.

 

[Tach]

I have been losing sleep over Farsight's clock problem. Actually it more that I am starting to understand all this GR stuff. It is exciting in a way. I think I can now explain Farsight's clock picture. Keep in mind I don't have all the lingo down and so my explanation might sound clunky at times.

First I have broken the problem into 3 parts. Actually I am going to call them transformations. $${T_{newton}}$$ is Newtonian gravity which involves center of mass and inverse square law etc, $${T_{warp}}$$ is warped space which is the bowling ball on the rubber sheet and $${T_{sr}}$$ which is special relativity. More accurately, $${T_{newton}}$$ defines the gravitational field. $${T_{warp}}$$ applies a stretching of space in the radial direction. And $${T_{sr}}$$ is Special Relativity. The first two of these ($${T_{newton}}$$ and $${T_{warp}}$$) are not very important to the problem in this simplified explanation. They only account for the fact that a straight horizontal light clock is like a chord on the arc of constant gravity. A tidal effect. It has a negligible impact on the problem due to the tiny measurements involved. The important thing is $${T_{sr}}$$ which is about acceleration and velocity and time dilation and length contraction.

Gravity is equivalent to acceleration via the equivalence principle. So working backwards, for the two clocks to behave as if they are in free space traveling at different velocities, the equivalent acceleration of gravity has to act like a difference in velocities of the two clocks in SR. I have not actually figured this small detail out yet, but know in my gut that it is true. It is probably related to the fact that acceleration has a squared term and in SR all the terms are squared too. Some how some factors have to cancel and the result for SR is two different spacetime velocities for the two clocks. It may have to do with this equation $${c^2}{t^2} = {s^2} + {x^2} + {y^2} + {z^2}$$ and that would agree with a velocity in a spacetime direction that is not x, y or z. So gravity really is an acceleration in this dimension involved in time and not noticeable in the normal 3-space directions.

This is wrong. I already explained that the two clocks, by virtue of being placed at different altitudes in the gravitational field cause the photons to in-spiral towards the center of attraction but the in-spirals have different curvatures. The lower clock has an in-spiral of higher curvature, hence the photon travels a longer distance between mirrors, hence it ticks slower.

A different way of explaining the effect is by using the equivalence principle. Take the two clocks far away from the effects gravitational field. Accelerate each clock with $$g=\frac{GM}{r^2}$$ where $$r$$ was the respective Schwarzschild radial distance. Obviously the lower clock will be subjected to a higher acceleration. The photon path will be curved "downwards" in each clock, more for the lower clock. As such, the photon in the lower clock has the longer trajectory between mirrors.

If someone can supply this key piece of the puzzle then the problem is solved. If not then Farsight is right. I will not expect Farsight to participate since he has no incentive. I will work on it tonight if I get a chance.

Farsight is wrong. See above. He's been peddling his crank ideas for a long time. What makes him fun is that his crank ideas give the opportunity to interesting, mainstream rebuttals. See above.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Excuse my taking the liberty to ask this, but isn't it true that the math conveys the concept by converting it into an established language that physicists use to quantify their view of the concept? If so, can't any concept be expressed mathematically? Then isn't it reasonable to expect that if the concepts differ that the math will differ, even if the math works perfectly? What am I missing here? It is just that Forsight has not produced math that agrees with your math, or hasn't produced the math that works perfectly for his preferred concept, or what?

You are missing the fact that physics supplies the math that states what nature is actually doing. This is entirely different than a concept, which may or may not conform to nature depending on the reasons the author wrote it.

PhysBang is reminding us that every valid equation pertaining to physics has a physical interpretation. All other equations attempted by people who have not read physics, are likely to have no correspondence to physical reality at all, or else they tend to commit egregious violations of math, including the theorems used to arrive at proofs and to apply logic, not to mention all of the laws of nature that tend to be overlooked or violated by anyone who is convinced there is a mainstream blindness or bias in play. That's a dead giveaway. It may be hard to learn math and science, but I suspect most college freshmen can detect about 90% of the fallacies made by folks operating under that assumption. And yes, a lot of it comes out in the math.

 

[Cheezle]

This is wrong. I already explained that the two clocks, by virtue of being placed at different altitudes in the gravitational field cause the photons to in-spiral towards the center of attraction but the in-spirals have different curvatures. The lower clock has an in-spiral of higher curvature, hence the photon travels a longer distance between mirrors, hence it ticks slower.

A different way of explaining the effect is by using the equivalence principle. Take the two clocks far away from the effects gravitational field. Accelerate each clock with $$g=\frac{GM}{r^2}$$ where $$r$$ was the respective Schwarzschild radial distance. Obviously the lower clock will be subjected to a higher acceleration. The photon path will be curved "downwards" in each clock, more for the lower clock. As such, the photon in the lower clock has the longer trajectory between mirrors.

I think that is kind of what I said. I just threw out the parts that were not very important to the problem. I am just considering the 2 tangent spaces for the two clocks which are under 2 different equivalent accelerations in the same spacetime direction. I tossed out the way space is stretched radially because as Farsight pointed out, the clocks are horizontal. I tossed out the spherical nature of gravity. I am not going to worry about the fact that the clock itself is not really in a tangent space due to its physical size. I am not considering a any rotation of the planet or the clocks orbiting about it. I realize that there are all these complicated parts that I am ignoring. I am just abstracting the problem to 2 clocks in 2 different acceleration fields just like Farsight's picture. I would be willing to bet some large fictitious amount of money that what I said, and what you said work out to be extremely close [edit: under practical circumstances, no spinning black holes or the like]. I have been working on the math and I think I am close to showing the 2 different gravity equivalent accelerations become 2 different velocities under SR.

OK I am pretty new at this, but problem solving is like skiing. It is a semi-controlled fall. One mistake and you do a face plant. But as an anonymous actor in a soon to be (according to QW) alternative theory thread, what do I have to lose?

 

[quantum_wave]

You are missing the fact that physics supplies the math that states what nature is actually doing. This is entirely different than a concept, which may or may not conform to nature depending on the reasons the author wrote it.

I thought there were supposed to be observations that then physics explains.

PhysBang is reminding us that every valid equation pertaining to physics has a physical interpretation.

That sounds like the equation comes first, instead of the physics quantifying and attemping to explain the observation; doesn't all of the science have to have a connection to observation, somewhere?

All other equations attempted by people who have not read physics,

This is arrogant and smacks of a supernatural ability to intuitively know the mind of others.

...
are likely to have no correspondence to physical reality at all,

Oh, so if you know the physical interpretation, you know reality, and you as physicist read the mind of the presenters and find them lacking in their understanding of reality.

or else they tend to commit egregious violations of math, including the theorems used to arrive at proofs and to apply logic, not to mention all of the laws of nature that tend to be overlooked or violated

I'll give you that, but if the math works, but doesn't correspond with your math, then what?

by anyone who is convinced there is a mainstream blindness or bias in play. That's a dead giveaway.

This sounds like any claim that is not mainstream must be based on blindness or bias. Is that how science works, or is the scientific method still taught.

It may be hard to learn math and science, but I suspect most college freshmen can detect about 90% of the fallacies made by folks operating under that assumption.

If you say so, but I suppose some of those freshmen will eventually have questions and ideas of their own.

And yes, a lot of it comes out in the math.

You mean the math that replaces the need for observation and the scientific method?

 

[quantum_wave]

... And yes, a lot of it comes out in the math.

Agreed, though we are at odds on the nature of these forums. I don't want to diverge too far from the intended topic, or else you'll be claiming that the owners don't intend for individual members to start and run their own threads along the topic of their choosing. It would be appropriate for you to start your own thread if your interests are contrary to my discussion topic.

 

[quantum_wave]

...*
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.

We agree on all of that; the overreach, preconditions like something equivalent to your massive black-hole "frozen star" scenario, no "tired light", and the volume of space occupied by our arena is expanding. I should stop here, lol.

As for whether it is a "frozen star" scenario, or my multiple converging big bang arenas that provides the preconditions to our big bang, we don't know. So science doesn't have the answer. If we want a complete cosmology I think it must contain hypotheses about those things we cannot answer scientifically. It follows that that comes with the necessity to be reasonable and responsible with how we connect our hypotheses to the actual scientific observations.