At Rest with our Hubble view

[Farsight]

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.

LOL, that's kind of what I've been trying to say. Some of the things you've been suggesting sound like over-reach, and I think you'd be better off pulling back a bit.

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.

True enough. IMHO you need to build up to it by dealing with the simpler things first. Once you've got a coherent model of sorts for them, you're better placed to hypothesize about the tough stuff.

 

[Farsight]

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.

Go for it, Cheezle. But don't listen to Tach, he isn't honest.

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....

Cheezle: no. See my post #787 above. Read it, understand it, and try again. You will eventually realise that I'm right, and that I'm right because Einstein was right, and the evidence backs him up.

 

[Tach]

Go for it, Cheezle. But don't listen to Tach, he isn't honest.

Duffield, you are the epitomy of fraud.

You will eventually realise that I'm right, and that I'm right

He'll realize that you are a fraud, like many others already did.

 

[Cheezle]

Go for it, Cheezle. But don't listen to Tach, he isn't honest.

Cheezle: no. See my post #787 above. Read it, understand it, and try again. You will eventually realise that I'm right, and that I'm right because Einstein was right, and the evidence backs him up.

Hey, I am thinking for myself here. As per your advice. While I am not really close to finding an answer, I am getting some of my ancient rusty math skills back to about the high school level. Some things look promising. But I keep getting tautologies. That is not good, but better than direct conflicts. Some intermediate steps make sense. Unit analysis is checking out everywhere. BTW I never learned to ski.

 

[quantum_wave]

LOL, that's kind of what I've been trying to say. Some of the things you've been suggesting sound like over-reach, and I think you'd be better off pulling back a bit.

It wasn't hard to detect that you were going there, and I understand that what we can't know is not your main interest. It is just that there must be physics associated with precondtions, and the "as yet unknown" physics can can be brainstormed, discussed, and some set of reasonable and responsible physics necessary to cause the big bang can then become a data base of possibilities. Existing physics theory and unanswered questions, when examined from each of the possibilities, can then lead to discoveries. I assume that is happening, but the discussion of those possibilites seems to be frowned upon.

True enough. IMHO you need to build up to it by dealing with the simpler things first. Once you've got a coherent model of sorts for them, you're better placed to hypothesize about the tough stuff.

You may not it is of any benefit for me to be doing this hobby, and perhaps it should be left to the scientific community. Yet I think it is already the on going work of the scientific community, and that a science enthusiast layman can keep pretty well informed on what the current theories say, what the compatibilities and inconsistencies are, and not have to be doing science to get that understanding.

Hypothesizing on my level is more of a process of looking at the hypotheses out there, and choosing the one I like to answer the question that science has not yet reached a consensus on.

It my be unsettling to you but I still have a few of your posted responses to me that I am going through and responding to. I'll take you off the hook though, and not expect you to address those coming posts if they go beyond what your sensibilities tell you is a fair topic for my thread.

 

[Tach]

Existing physics theory and unanswered questions, can then lead to discoveries.

Not by people like you or John Duffield. Neither you, nor Farsight are capable of making any discovery in physics because you are thoroughly ignorant on the subjects that you are attempting to tackle.

 

[quantum_wave]

Not by people like you or John Duffield. Neither you, nor Farsight are capable of making any discovery in physics because you are thoroughly ignorant on the subjects that you are attempting to tackle.

You didn't read or couldn't grasp the basic concept. You pretend I said I could do the science. Straw man, but expected from you.

 

[Aqueous Id]

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

What I actually said was, every valid equation pertaining to physics has a physical interpretation. I never said we invent formulas and then go to find out if they are true. That's not necessarily an invalid procedure anyway; there are many kinds of experiments that require trial and error.

PhysBang's point is valid, for the following reasons.

First, if a person proposes something in physics, something that expresses certain relationships concerning established principles, but cannot state the same thing mathematically, then it's a reflection of ignorance in math and science, a serious flaw that undermines any of the subsequent claims. Second, if the person knows math and science, but fails to find a way to express a concept mathematically, then in all probability the concept is fundamentally flawed. Third, if the person succeeds in providing the math that accompanies the text that's in controversy, the better of the two will succeed in showing that there is or is not a flaw in the math, which cuts to the chase and leaves both parties better informed about the subject matter.

All other equations attempted by people who have not read physics are likely to have no correspondence to physical reality at all

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

It's the other way around. People who have no foundations in the field they are pretending to understand demonstrate their arrogance when they post bogus claims concerning those foundations, and then argue against the folks who did actually bother to read physics. Further, they demonstrate what you call supernatural ability to intuitively know the mind of others by abuse of the term 'mainstream', namely, using it as a presumed blindness at large among those who did actually bother to read physics, as a presumed ground for elevating the antagonist to the status of a martyr, for the purposes of getting people to pay attention to them.

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.

That's a pretty twisted statement. Formulas in physics have physical interpretations. If the formula is written in such a way as to pose as impossibility (infinite energy often crops up) - then both sides can quickly arrive at the conclusion that the claim is flawed. As least the expert can. The antagonist may continue to harp on the flawed claim come hell or high water. Then we apply the appropriate label (troll, crank, knucklehead, etc.) according to the severity of the offense and apply the recommended punitive measures.

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?

It depends on what you mean by 'the math works'. If you think you can break a syllogism, then no, you're operating from a false premise in this question. Of course Blockhead typically has no math, much less any valid math. But if there is valid math on both sides, the one with the better math wins, or else it's a tie. This is not even what typically happens. Typically it's a question of insufficient data, and the two sides are trying to figure out which workaround is best. Of none of theis has no bearing whatsoever here, where Pinhead is posting claims against topics of higher learning, without even high school diploma.

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.

Anyone who stereotypes 'mainstream' as biased, yes. They will never make in the field. It requires the ability to be objective. That's why it's a dead giveaway.

Is that how science works, or is the scientific method still taught.

Science works because it follows the theorems of Geometry, which is a prerequisite to formal education. Once you pass Geometry, all of the scales fall from your eyes whether you ever go on to study science or not. You've basically already made it, and could join in this discussion and follow everything I'm saying right off the bat.

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

There is nothing particularly wonderful about having a question or idea. Science is not concerned with giving people strokes for being wonderful. It's concerned with the discovery of the truth of a matter. If a person wants to find an answer to a mystery yet unsolved they may devote themselves to solving it. Thankfully millions do. But they don't begin by assuming they can explain something by avoiding all of the work that has been done to date to address the particular question. Further, being in denial of reality is not properly characterized as being wonderful.

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?

I mean that rather than building a space ship to take Dingbat to the Moon with a scale to weigh himself, I can save a lot of trouble by showing him the error in the formula he wrote that has led to a particular argument over a bogus claim of that sort.

 

[Tach]

You didn't read or couldn't grasp the basic concept. You pretend I said I could do the science. Straw man, but expected from you.

You pretend that you are doing "discoveries" and that you are debating science. In fact, all you are doing is posting crackpottery.

 

[Aqueous Id]

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.

At present I am only responding to factual predicates you opened. You don't get to open an issue and then complain that it's off topic. And it's ludicrous to state that you own anything here. The assets are the sole property of SciForums, which are generously made free to the public.

 

[Aqueous Id]

You pretend that you are doing "discoveries" and that you are debating science. In fact, all you are doing is posting crackpottery.

Why people attack you defies comprehension. It's one thing for someone to ask you for help, or -- if at your level -- to question something you posted. The rest is ridiculous.

 

[Tach]

Why people attack you defies comprehension. It's one thing for someone to ask you for help, or -- if at your level -- to question something you posted. The rest is ridiculous.

The cranks get very irritated when exposed for what they are, this is why they attack, like the hornets. I like kicking hornets' nests.

 

[brucep]

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?

For this experiment you can't say the tick rate of the clock isn't effected by gravity in a meaningful way since you're trying to measure the exceedingly small difference. It's the point of the experiment. You get to conduct experiments in approximate flat spacetime because 'exceedingly small effects' of gravity doesn't result in making a meaningful difference in the result of the experiment. The GPS is a perfect example of an experimental model which requires GR in the weak field. Predicting the tick rate of clocks in the weak field requires GR. So all this is really about is, I believe, you'll get more for your effort starting a study on GR.

 

[przyk]

The wiki quote indicates that GR was altered in the sixties, and underwent a change in interpretation, which is backed up by the Einstein VSL quotes and the Baez article.

This is an exaggeration. All your wiki quote says is that GR became mainstream and gained popular appeal in the period 1960-1975, and that some aspects of it became better understood during this time. But it's still the same theory originally proposed by Einstein. That's why I can read, say, Einstein's 1916 paper on GR and find it so readily recognisable as the GR I already know.

They don't address the SR coordinate speed of light.

So you were changing the subject then.

It didn't shrink. A whole rack of observers watching you will assure you that the distance between you and that star didn't contract [...]

Yes. In their reference frame. But not in mine. Relativity, remember?

Yes, you cannot transform away a real gravitational field. It's there.

There are at least three different quantities that variously get called the "gravitational field" in GR: the metric coefficients, the Christoffel symbols, and the Riemann tensor. Which one are you referring to? Not all of these are invariant.

It's just an abstract thing that you have defined. And regardless of the definition you use, that lower clock goes slower.

Demonstrably false. Look up how gravitational time dilation is actually derived sometime. It's very explicitly frame dependent.

No it isn't wrong. I derived my gif by simplifying the empirical observations of the NIST optical clocks. The lower clock runs slower, it's an empirical observation.

I asked if you knew how gravitational time dilation was derived. You started talking about empirical observations that followed the theoretical prediction many decades later. That is not how gravitational time dilation is derived. So you were either wrong or you were trying to change the subject.

Yes. And again, the gif represents an empirical observation, not the derivation of GR.

Unless someone literally sat there with a camcorder filming two parallel-mirror clocks, your GIF does not represent an empirical observation. You've added a lot that isn't part of the raw data.

He will on his next orbital pass. You're clutching at straws with that przyk.

What orbital pass? I didn't say anything about orbiting.

No it doesn't. There is no detectable spacetime curvature in the room you're in. But you can detect the difference in the NIST clock rates. You cannot transform away a gravitational field.

The main 'cause' of gravitational time dilation is the fact that we're working and living in an accelerating reference frame. That can be transformed away: just switch to a locally inertial (i.e. free-fall) reference frame for instance.

 

[Cheezle]

For this experiment you can't say the tick rate of the clock isn't effected by gravity in a meaningful way since you're trying to measure the exceedingly small difference. It's the point of the experiment. You get to conduct experiments in approximate flat spacetime because 'exceedingly small effects' of gravity doesn't result in making a meaningful difference in the result of the experiment. The GPS is a perfect example of an experimental model which requires GR in the weak field. Predicting the tick rate of clocks in the weak field requires GR. So all this is really about is, I believe, you'll get more for your effort starting a study on GR.

Yeah Bruce, I know. I don't really think I am going to make any Earth shattering discoveries. All I am really doing here is asking questions, mostly to myself, and seeing if I can find out anything. As you know, thinking about black holes and spacetime is really interesting stuff. So I am just thinking about stuff, asking what if type questions and seeing if I can figure out ... not THE answer but AN answer. While I will surely fail at the big stuff, I will learn some interesting things in the process. And because my math and science skills have been pretty much dormant for a few decades, it might improve them. And it keeps the old brain cells in shape. I am getting old and don't want to wind up lost in my own neighborhood like the old geezer down the street.

One thing I have noticed from experience is that physics and math is full of these remarkable features. Where all the complication sometimes just falls away and you are left with a really interesting and really simple relationship. I am sure you know what I am talking about. That is all I am really doing. Exploring. For instance, recently I was thinking about the pythagorean theorem and how the altitude of a right triangle divides the hypotenuse. If the hypotenuse is length one, then sides are sin and cos. And the altitude divides the hypotenuse into sin^2 and cos^2. A common trig identity. And if you continue the altitude out so that it divides the hypotenuse's square, then it divides it into areas of sin^2 and cos^2. An obvious result. And if the right triangle is allowed to scale up so that the hypotenuse is not one, then this relationship is gone. Part of the system scales as a square and the other is linear. In a way you could call L=1 it a metric I suppose. The relationship only holds at length=1. At different lengths the hypotenuse is divided into k*sin^2 and k*cos^2. I am sure most of you guys knew this, and it was easy to see, but I had never looked at the subject. It was just an exploration. It was a fun investigation of a simple subject.

Another for instance, and this is probably obvious to you, I just figured out that if because of SR, velocities don't add, then how do accelerations add. I am sure they don't, but I am not sure of the relationship. I have an idea though. No don't tell me. I need to work on this myself. Whether or not it matters in GR is not important. In a fox hunt, the object is to to kill the fox, the object is to experience the hunt! Same with fly fishing, esp for catch and release. I am more of a fly fisherman but you get the idea.

 

[quantum_wave]

You pretend that you are doing "discoveries" and that you are debating science. In fact, all you are doing is posting crackpottery.

The cranks get very irritated when exposed for what they are, this is why they attack, like the hornets. I like kicking hornets' nests.

Why people attack you defies comprehension. It's one thing for someone to ask you for help, or -- if at your level -- to question something you posted. The rest is ridiculous.

That is life on the Internet. No one will change because of what we say to each other, and the measure of what we say is judged by those who read it, not my those who say it.

 

[quantum_wave]

For this experiment you can't say the tick rate of the clock isn't effected by gravity in a meaningful way since you're trying to measure the exceedingly small difference. It's the point of the experiment. You get to conduct experiments in approximate flat spacetime because 'exceedingly small effects' of gravity doesn't result in making a meaningful difference in the result of the experiment. The GPS is a perfect example of an experimental model which requires GR in the weak field. Predicting the tick rate of clocks in the weak field requires GR. So all this is really about is, I believe, you'll get more for your effort starting a study on GR.

Many of us acknowledge that the equations of GR are the best tool for precise calculations, and should only be handled by professionals, lol. Obviously they take into consideration a great deal more information about the energy density conditions that affect the experiment. So what are the aspects of the environment that come into play when applying the equations and how are those aspects measured?

 

[brucep]

This is an exaggeration. All your wiki quote says is that GR became mainstream and gained popular appeal in the period 1960-1975, and that some aspects of it became better understood during this time. But it's still the same theory originally proposed by Einstein. That's why I can read, say, Einstein's 1916 paper on GR and find it so readily recognisable as the GR I already know.




So you were changing the subject then.




Yes. In their reference frame. But not in mine. Relativity, remember?




There are at least three different quantities that variously get called the "gravitational field" in GR: the metric coefficients, the Christoffel symbols, and the Riemann tensor. Which one are you referring to? Not all of these are invariant.




Demonstrably false. Look up how gravitational time dilation is actually derived sometime. It's very explicitly frame dependent.




I asked if you knew how gravitational time dilation was derived. You started talking about empirical observations that followed the theoretical prediction many decades later. That is not how gravitational time dilation is derived. So you were either wrong or you were trying to change the subject.




Unless someone literally sat there with a camcorder filming two parallel-mirror clocks, your GIF does not represent an empirical observation. You've added a lot that isn't part of the raw data.




What orbital pass? I didn't say anything about orbiting.




The main 'cause' of gravitational time dilation is the fact that we're working and living in an accelerating reference frame. That can be transformed away: just switch to a locally inertial (i.e. free-fall) reference frame for instance.

You can't transform away the gravitational field. The gravitational field is the g field. The g field isn't frame dependent. Science has measured spacetime 'curvature in the room'. It's called the Gravity Probe B experiment. Conducting experiments in freefall is one way of conducting experiments where 'exceedingly small effects of gravity' can be ignored. You can't transform them away but you get to ignore effects that are meaningless to the experimental results. Another good place to conduct experiments is the laboratory frame of SR. Like CERN. Since there's matter in our universe the gravitational field is infinite in extent. Everywhere.

 

[quantum_wave]

You can't transform away the gravitational field. The gravitational field is the g field. The g field isn't frame dependent. Science has measured spacetime 'curvature in the room'. It's called the Gravity Probe B experiment. Conducting experiments in freefall is one way of conducting experiments where 'exceedingly small effects of gravity' can be ignored. You can't transform them away but you get to ignore effects that are meaningless to the experimental results. Another good place to conduct experiments is the laboratory frame of SR. Like CERN. Since there's matter in our universe the gravitational field is infinite in extent. Everywhere.

Yes, and the equations are fine, but there is a cosmology behind the equations to the extent that they are the corner stone of BBT. I am asking you to address the cosmology for a minute, and answer this question: Since BBT does not address the cause of the initial expansion, would you say that the cause has not been taken into consideration in the physics of BBT?.

 

[quantum_wave]

...


Demonstrably false. Look up how gravitational time dilation is actually derived sometime. It's very explicitly frame dependent.

Here is the point that you seem to be wrong, and I have to ask myself why you refuse to acknowledge the fact that clocks run slower or faster under various energy density situations. Is there some catch to the observation that I don't see?