At Rest with our Hubble view

[Tach]

Thanks for your response, Tach.


Yes, we all knew the difference already,

No, you didn't as evidenced by your repeated questions that showed total lack of understanding.

Now remember that your "explanation" for slowing in the #2 case was "spiral motion makes path longer for the light".

The next question then logically indicated was:

If longer "spiral path" was the "explanation" for slowing in case #2, then when we remove the supposed "spiral path" (as I already implied when posing my further question for case #1), then the slowing should not arise according to your initial "explanation" for slowing.

You can't "remove the spiral path", this is the orbit of the photon , you are making up totally crackpot stuff again.

Then you nebulously refer to "Rindler" without actually explaining how, if the 'spiral path' was the cause of slowing in the #2 case, the slowing still arises despite the fact your longer "spiral path distance" is removed!

You are completely in lala land.

So, please can you elaborate clearly what supposedly happens when your "Rindler" theoretical "explanation" meets the reality of the case #1

You still don't get it, do you? There is no "spiral path" when the photons move radially. You claim that you understand but in reality you understand nothing. You repeat the same nonsense over and over.

situation where there is no longer a supposed "longer spiral path" which you depended on to account for the slowing as in case #2?

I already explained that to you three times. In case 1 (radial motion), the clock that has higher acceleration (the lower clock in the gravitational field) exhibits a longer path for the photons, hence it ticks slower. I even gave out the same exact physical explanation and the accompanying mathematical formalism.

 

[Undefined]

No, you didn't as evidenced by your repeated questions that showed total lack of understanding.

The "lack of understanding" (and confusing/misdirecting the discussion) may be yours, as has occurred more than once before now.

You can't "remove the spiral path", this is the orbit of the photon , you are making up totally crackpot stuff again.

The "spiral path" was supposedly present only in case #2.

And there is no actual "orbit of the photon" in case #1 where the photon's oscillation is radial, and that radial is above a non-spinning planet (as I already said for case #1).

You are completely in lala land.

Is lala land where your "explanations" so far have come from? No wonder.

You still don't get it, do you? There is no "spiral path" when the photons move radially. You claim that you understand but in reality you understand nothing. You repeat the same nonsense over and over.

It was me that told you that there was no "spiral path" in the up/down radially oscillating case #1, remember? Which is why I asked for your further elaboration, since your "longer spiral path' reason for observed slowing no longer applies.

I already explained that to you three times. In case 1 (radial motion), the clock that has higher acceleration (the lower clock in the gravitational field) exhibits a longer path for the photons, hence it ticks slower. I even gave out the same exact physical explanation and the accompanying mathematical formalism.

And I already said that lesser/greater gravitational acceleration effect on a clock is due to the effect of applicable gravitational energy density variations up/down the radial affecting the clock process/tick rates as observed.

All you have done in reply is just to say: "higher acceleration causes it". Without any real explanations how that higher acceleration comes about as an empirical effect, and not as just some abstract 'label' for it.


So, now that you have agreed (in an earlier post) with Markus Hanke's statement that "...curvature is energy!", will you please answer the question I put to you in reply, namely:

So you agree that curvature is energy? Then please explain where exactly is your disagreement with my references to gravitational energy density differences between different (upper/lower) same radial GR "local frame" space regions affecting clock processes/rates as observed?

Thanks.

 

[Tach]

The "spiral path" was supposedly present only in case #2.

You got this one right after getting it four times in a row wrong.

And there is no actual "orbit of the photon" in case #1 where the photon's oscillation is radial, and that radial is above a non-spinning planet (as I already said for case #1).

after 5 repetitions of the explanation you finally got it.

And I already said that lesser/greater gravitational acceleration effect on a clock is due to the effect of applicable gravitational energy density variations up/down the radial affecting the clock process/tick rates as observed.

There is no such thing as "gravitational energy density", you can lay off your repeated crackpottery.

 

[rr6]

Energy Density= Finite Occupied Space imho

"Energy density" is, and can only be, related to a finite occupied space, that we call Universe or some may call God.

Finite occupied space--- aka Universe --- exists eternally ergo a collectively finite set of time related quanta or any combinations thereof, within--- i.e.embraced by not restrained by --- an infinite non-occupied space.

Only finite occupied space, and those causal/deterministic operations of such occupied space, can be associated with the word integrity. imho.

Integrity can only be specific to a finite occupied space( Universe ) and systems operating of such space ergo the existence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics aka a concept of a cosmic law/principle.

I.e. ...physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed......

The concept of integrity is antihesis of the concept of infinity. imho

I think why I've never heard a rationally logical explanation for an infinite occupied space, is because none exist.

Energy density may expand or contract its volume, yet since physical/energy cannot be created, there can only be some mechanism that allows for this expansion or stretching or whatever. This may be where gravitaitonal spacetime comes into play, and the ideas that Fuller calls multiplication-by-division.

And specifically division of a finite occupied space i.e. the finite occupied space exists eternally, yet it can appear to multiply by dividing its finite self into smaller, yet connected parts. Fuller allows for the possibility of and eternal and infinite subdivision of the finite occupied space.

I do not. Loop Quantum Theory hints at ideas of variable sets of expansion-- ergo Fullers multiplciation-by-division --- to various degrees/amounts at differrent times or cycles of regenerative existence

I agree with that possibly to a degree but I think there is a limit to contraction or expansion via whatever mechanism.

Come to think of it some more, I don't think we can actually increase the volume of occupied space. What may happen, is that we rearrange the shape of occupied space and in so doing we may give a superificial appearence of and increased volume.

Ex. think of a long link of hot dogs or sticks, and there all closely packed together. Now spread the hot dogs or sticks apart yet touching end-to-end yet keep them linked in circle.

Now we have expanded the diametric distance be two furtherest apart hot dogs, but only be creating a non-occupied space between those two diametrically opposed hot dogs.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that to maintain and integrity of occupied space--- and specifically gravitational spacetime ---the has to be true non-occupied spaces reshifted between two diametric distances of occupied space. This all goes back to why I believe occupied space in its graitational spacetime essence, is geodesic tubulars/rings/tori.

The tori/ring/tube/doughnut shape has a volume. If the tube becomes smaller, then the overall outside diameter between the outside edges of torus will have to increase to maintain its 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I.e. the volume remains constant but the shape of the volume can change ergo the respective distances between the diameter the two outside side distances, and the diametric distant outside of the volume of tube, but between the tube is the inner distance. I'm sure there is name for this shape changing where volume--- sum-total energy density --- does not change.

Come to think of it. This may only be possible to do with a torus shape, because we can expand or shrink the outer diametric distance while keeping the volume the same. I don't think we can do that with positive curvature only i.e. with a sphere..

Whoa doggy! If that is the case, then I may have to rethink some ideas regarding cubo(6)-octa(8)hedron, icosahedron, octahedron and tetrahedron. H,mmm....


r6

 

[quantum_wave]

OH Dear Moderator in Heaven, please save us from ourselves. Man-up here and send the evil devils to their Hell. And send your experiment of a science forum without moderation down as well.

Hypothesis: There is gravitaitonal wave energy. It is quantified by the EFEs, and they are the best math we have to describe the effects of quantum gravity at the macro level caused by the gravitational energy density of space.

No one has ever observed curved spacetime and never will. It certainly has the smell of a myth if you judge by how its advocates on this board are intensively defensive, how they describe GR as geometry and math with no explanation of a physical mechanism, and how they depict anyone who wants to even talk about a mechanism as cranks and crackpots in a public forum. When civility is scoffed at by a few ranting defenders who refuse to let the other side go unharassed on a meaningless discussion board, it is a sure sign that there is something wrong in GR land.

Their rants seem to be intended to squelch any enthusiasm for a quantum gravity solution on the discussion boards. Never-the-less, there is clearly a huge effort within the scientific community tasked to piece together the quantum mechanism and to unite the forces of nature. The enthusiastic and intelligent people who have the sense to see through their smoke screen do so becasue they know about the ongoing advancing science, and understand that the ultimate direction may well be the quantum solution.

When you start out with a clear view of what the scientific community thinks and says, a one minute survey of the results of a Google search for "The search for quantum gravity" quickly shows how remote the anti-quantum gravity crowd is from the reality of the scene outside of an unmoderated discussion board.

Try this paper for example. It covers the scope of the search:*http://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.3420v1.pdf

Section 1. The Quest for Quantum Gravity

Scientific discovery is like the mapping of unknown territory. Curiosity and the good book- keeping of scientific inquiry gradually revealed to us the ground nature put to our feet, and while some of our knowledge will need revision upon closer investigation, today we have access to highly detailed maps and guides of nature, backed up by so much evidence we are comfortable to build our lives on this territory. But our curiosity still drives us farther, again and again pushing the boundaries of the known, venturing out into the unknown.
There are two ways the expansion of scientific knowledge, the exploration of terra incognita, goes ahead. An experiment may test a previously virgin area and make an unexpected find, leaving it for the theorist to explain and make sense of. Or, a theorist may put forward a hypothesis and make a prediction, telling the experimentalist where to look next. In physics in particular, both has historically gone hand in hand, and still does. The theorist aims to make predictions for planned experiments, and the experimentalist will be interested in testing well-founded predictions offered by the theorist. Over the centuries, we developed methods and procedures that have proven useful in this process and that we rely on today, such as peer review and repeatability of experiments. Due to the well-demonstrated “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences,” [1] mathematical self- consistency of a theory is an essential ingredient assuring quality and success.
In the following, we will focus on one particular ongoing exploration at the frontiers of our knowledge: The quest for quantum gravity.

The paper goes on to address many aspects of the search for quantum gravity, and concludes with, "The quest for quantum gravity may proceed slowly and sometimes be frustrating, but the reward will be nothing less than a revolution of our understanding of space and time."

That was three years ago, and it is easy to keep abreast of ongoing developments in the field by reviewing conferences and papers.

Here as a more recent account from an international conference:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/conferences/experimental-search-quantum-gravity-hard-facts

You can see that those here who want you to believe there is no quantum gravity have not stopped the professional community from their efforts. Decide for yourself about quantum gravity, and keep in mind that the effects are the same as curved spacetime, the EFEs work for both at the macro level, GR doesn't work at the quantum level, and the enthusiasm for QG is strong in the scientific community.

 

[Tach]

No one has ever observed curved spacetime and never will.

That is, like everything else you post, FALSE. But don't let scientific fact get in the way of the fringe stuff you've been posting.

It certainly has the smell of a myth if you judge by how its advocates on this board are intensively defensive, how they describe GR as geometry and math with no explanation of a physical mechanism, and how they depict anyone who wants to even talk about a mechanism as cranks and crackpots in a public forum.

If the shoe fits, wear it. No point in learning anything, just keep posting your fringe BS.

Their rants seem to be intended to squelch any enthusiasm for a quantum gravity solution on the discussion boards.

No one is squelching anything, nor are you discussing QG, contrary to your delusions. You are being criticized for posting BS, not for attempting to discuss QG. You have no clue about basic physics, let alone about QG.

 

[quantum_wave]

That is, like everything else you post, FALSE. But don't let scientific fact get in the way of the fringe stuff you've been posting.



If the shoe fits, wear it. No point in learning anything, just keep posting your fringe BS.



No one is squelching anything, nor are you discussing QG, contrary to your delusions. You are being criticized for posting BS, not for attempting to discuss QG. You have no clue about basic physics, let alone about QG.

You're wrong about that.

 

[quantum_wave]

Hypothesis: There is gravitaitonal wave energy. It is quantified by the EFEs, and they are the best math we have to describe the effects of quantum gravity at the macro level caused by the gravitational energy density of space.

OK, here is a link to a related topic: Gravitational Wave Detector
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave_detector

The direct detection of gravitational waves is complicated by the extraordinarily small effect the waves would produce on a detector. The amplitude of a spherical wave will fall off as the inverse square of the distance from the source. Thus, even waves from extreme systems like merging binary black holes die out to very small amplitude by the time they reach the Earth. Astrophysicists expect that some gravitational waves passing the Earth may be as large as h~10^-18, but generally no bigger.

 

[quantum_wave]

Finding gravity waves is problematic. This link gives some details and what they are doing to overcome "noise" problem.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013...-of-atoms-future-gravitational-wave-detector/
Quote from article:
"I've always had a fascination with gravitational wave detection. Gravitational waves are the stretches and contractions in space-time that result from the motion of massive objects. The waves change the apparent distance between two objects as they pass through. But they are tiny—really tiny. To cope with the challenge of detecting something so tiny, gravitational wave observatories have become multi-decade projects that are worked on by large multinational teams. Each generation of sensor is more sensitive than the last, but nothing has been found yet.

In principle, it would have taken a fairly catastrophic event in our local neighborhood for the first detectors to see something. So it's only now that we are starting to reach sensitivities that might reasonably be expected to detect gravitational waves. The big problem is noise. Consider that the typical shift in length caused by a gravity wave is smaller than a hydrogen atom over a few kilometers, and you can see how simple mirror movements and noise in laser systems—lasers are key to making the measurement—could easily swamp the signal.

Indeed, laser noise is a key problem that people have been going to desperate lengths to get around. A new type of interferometer/clock may go a long way to avoiding laser noise."

 

[Aqueous Id]

No one has ever observed curved spacetime and never will.

You mean you haven't.

It certainly has the smell of a myth

The evidence is optical, not olfactory.

if you judge by how its advocates on this board are intensively defensive,

IOW a few people who actually majored in science are posting on a science board

how they describe GR as geometry and math

OMG scientists mixing math with science

The most profound insight of General Relativity was the conclusion that the effect of gravitation could be reduced to a statement about the geometry of spacetime. ​

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/geometry.html

with no explanation of a physical mechanism,

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022524111413#page-1

and how they depict anyone who wants to even talk about a mechanism as cranks and crackpots in a public forum.

:bawl:

When civility is scoffed at by a few ranting defenders who refuse to let the other side go unharassed

Then stop.

it is a sure sign that there is something wrong in GR land.

Yes, it's a dismal failure.

Their rants seem to be intended to squelch any enthusiasm for a quantum gravity solution on the discussion boards.

:bawl:

The enthusiastic and intelligent people who have the sense to see through their smoke screen do so becasue they know about the ongoing advancing science,

BTW, no smoking allowed.

and understand that the ultimate direction may well be the quantum solution.

That's a long way from the Pythagorean Theorem. Baby steps, then you won't fall so hard.

When you start out with a clear view of what the scientific community thinks and says,

You mean a dissertation.

a one minute survey of the results of a Google search for "The search for quantum gravity" quickly shows

both sides of an issue:

Quantum gravity is sometimes portrayed as a panacea for the troubles afflicting a world described very well by GR in one regime and in another by QFT. What I wish to point out is that some of these problems may not exist as they are commonly understood.​

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jmm67/papers/IsGravityNecessarilyQuantized.proofs.pdf

The question of whether the gravitational field must be quantized in a full quantum theory of gravity thus turns out to be more subtle than is commonly assumed. Once stripped from its endemic folkore, the field affords a wide variety of arguments drawing on the resources of physical theories.​

http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/f...uthrichChristian2005PhilSci_QuantizeOrNot.pdf

how remote the anti-quantum gravity crowd is from the reality of the scene outside of an unmoderated discussion board.

Where else do lay people bring their gripes about science to scientists?

it is easy to keep abreast of ongoing developments in the field by reviewing conferences and papers.

Find any math in them?

Here as a more recent account from an international conference:

And here is an account from an international space agency

Some theories suggest that the quantum nature of space should manifest itself at the ‘Planck scale’: the minuscule 10-35 of a metre, where a millimetre is 10-3 m. However, Integral’s observations are about 10 000 times more accurate than any previous and show that any quantum graininess must be at a level of 10-48 m or smaller. “This is a very important result in fundamental physics and will rule out some string theories and quantum loop gravity theories,” says Dr Laurent.​

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Integral_challenges_physics_beyond_Einstein

You can see that those here who want you to believe there is no quantum gravity

You mean like your source:

To date we have no experimental signature for quantum gravitational effects.​

have not stopped the professional community from their efforts.

So you are vicariously advancing physics?

quantum gravity . . . the effects are the same as curved spacetime,

This must be why you said No one has ever observed curved spacetime and never will.

the EFEs work for both at the macro level,

Reversing your disavowal of the sci community for how they describe GR as geometry and math?

GR doesn't work at the quantum level,

Since you haven't expressed any knowledge of either, why does it even matter to you?
:shrug:

and the enthusiasm for QG is strong in the scientific community.

You are talking to the scientific community.

 

[origin]

You mean you haven't.

Whoa, that is awesome! I had not seen that particular picture of graviational lensing. Simply incredible.

Reality is way cooler than the madeup crap some of these pseudo-science knuckleheads believe in.

 

[quantum_wave]

Whoa, that is awesome! I had not seen that particular picture of graviational lensing. Simply incredible.

Reality is way cooler than the madeup crap some of these pseudo-science knuckleheads believe in.

Yes it is. Here is a link to the page describing the picture.

http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/gravitational-lensing-natures-telescope-120323.htm

It is said that gravitational lensing is light bending around massive objects, and confirms the predictions of GR. Eddington also confirmed bending light in 1919 during an eclipse. Bending light is an observable, but technically, the cause can be the gravitational effect on light as it passes a massive object just as well as it can be caused by the curvature of spacetime. It is not an observation of curved spacetime as some say.

 

[PhysBang]

Yes it is. Here is a link to the page describing the picture.

http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/gravitational-lensing-natures-telescope-120323.htm

It is said that gravitational lensing is light bending around massive objects, and confirms the predictions of GR. Eddington also confirmed bending light in 1919 during an eclipse. Bending light is an observable, but technically, the cause can be the gravitational effect on light as it passes a massive object just as well as it can be caused by the curvature of spacetime. It is not an observation of curved spacetime as some say.

But the observation of time delays that come with gravitational lensing is not consistent with your idea.

 

[quantum_wave]

But the observation of time delays that come with gravitational lensing is not consistent with your idea.

No? Explain.

 

[brucep]

You mean you haven't.

The evidence is optical, not olfactory.


IOW a few people who actually majored in science are posting on a science board


OMG scientists mixing math with science

The most profound insight of General Relativity was the conclusion that the effect of gravitation could be reduced to a statement about the geometry of spacetime. ​

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/geometry.html


http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022524111413#page-1


:bawl:


Then stop.


Yes, it's a dismal failure.


:bawl:


BTW, no smoking allowed.


That's a long way from the Pythagorean Theorem. Baby steps, then you won't fall so hard.


You mean a dissertation.


both sides of an issue:

Quantum gravity is sometimes portrayed as a panacea for the troubles afflicting a world described very well by GR in one regime and in another by QFT. What I wish to point out is that some of these problems may not exist as they are commonly understood.​

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jmm67/papers/IsGravityNecessarilyQuantized.proofs.pdf

The question of whether the gravitational field must be quantized in a full quantum theory of gravity thus turns out to be more subtle than is commonly assumed. Once stripped from its endemic folkore, the field affords a wide variety of arguments drawing on the resources of physical theories.​

http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/f...uthrichChristian2005PhilSci_QuantizeOrNot.pdf


Where else do lay people bring their gripes about science to scientists?


Find any math in them?



And here is an account from an international space agency

Some theories suggest that the quantum nature of space should manifest itself at the ‘Planck scale’: the minuscule 10-35 of a metre, where a millimetre is 10-3 m. However, Integral’s observations are about 10 000 times more accurate than any previous and show that any quantum graininess must be at a level of 10-48 m or smaller. “This is a very important result in fundamental physics and will rule out some string theories and quantum loop gravity theories,” says Dr Laurent.​

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Integral_challenges_physics_beyond_Einstein


You mean like your source:

To date we have no experimental signature for quantum gravitational effects.​

So you are vicariously advancing physics?


This must be why you said No one has ever observed curved spacetime and never will.


Reversing your disavowal of the sci community for how they describe GR as geometry and math?


Since you haven't expressed any knowledge of either, why does it even matter to you?
:shrug:


You are talking to the scientific community.

The Gravity Probe B measured the geodetic effect in the weak field. A great scientific accomplishment testing the prediction of GR. This was a direct measurement conducted in the local proper frame of the experiment. I like to 'take the leap' and conclude the experiment was measuring the geometry of spacetime [what we call spacetime curvature].

 

[brucep]

Yes it is. Here is a link to the page describing the picture.

http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/gravitational-lensing-natures-telescope-120323.htm

It is said that gravitational lensing is light bending around massive objects, and confirms the predictions of GR. Eddington also confirmed bending light in 1919 during an eclipse. Bending light is an observable, but technically, the cause can be the gravitational effect on light as it passes a massive object just as well as it can be caused by the curvature of spacetime. It is not an observation of curved spacetime as some say.

So you're saying Newton's prediction for the bending of light is the same as the prediction derived from GR? A perfect example of what 'Id's' been saying about your complete non scientific, intellectually dishonest, bogus approach to posting in this forum. Newton's prediction is 1/2 of Einstein's. Eddington and every other interested bystander new that before he completed the first test of the theory of general relativity. In 1920. What's the new excuse for your scientific illiteracy? Quit posting nonsense as facts.

 

[brucep]

But the observation of time delays that come with gravitational lensing is not consistent with your idea.

For saying that nonsense he should be permanently banned. It's a completely ignorant lie from beginning to end.

 

[rr6]

Mass's Motion Dragging a Frame of my Arse.....

The Gravity Probe B measured the geodetic effect in the weak field. A great scientific accomplishment testing the prediction of GR. This was a direct measurement conducted in the local proper frame of the experiment. I like to 'take the leap' and conclude the experiment was measuring the geometry of spacetime [what we call spacetime curvature].

I thought it was also called frame dragging. Geodectic would make more sense to me.

As I recall it was the spinning motion of mass--- or even semi-linear motion of mass --- that dragged gravitational spacetime--- where frames is involved no idea ---.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

..."Rotational frame-dragging (the Lense–Thirring effect) appears in the general principle of relativity and similar theories in the vicinity of rotating massive objects. Under the Lense–Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks the fastest is one which is revolving around the object as viewed by a distant observer. This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object will move past the massive object faster than light moving against the rotation, as seen by a distant observer. It is now the best known frame-dragging effect, partly thanks to the Gravity Probe B experiment. Qualitatively, frame-dragging can be viewed as the gravitational analog of electromagnetic induction.

Also, an inner region is dragged more than an outer region. This produces interesting locally rotating frames."........

Some kind of "frames of reference" My arse framed, your arse framed and those others arse's framed?

We do not see/observer gravitational spactime tho..doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that. We only see occupied space aka fermions and bosons and any combination thereof.

Again no rocket scientist needed to grasp these relatively simple concepts. imho.

r6

r6

 

[quantum_wave]

I thought it was also called frame dragging. Geodectic would make more sense to me.

As I recall it was the spinning motion of mass--- or even semi-linear motion of mass --- that dragged gravitational spacetime--- where frames is involved no idea ---.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

..."Rotational frame-dragging (the Lense–Thirring effect) appears in the general principle of relativity and similar theories in the vicinity of rotating massive objects. Under the Lense–Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks the fastest is one which is revolving around the object as viewed by a distant observer. This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object will move past the massive object faster than light moving against the rotation, as seen by a distant observer. It is now the best known frame-dragging effect, partly thanks to the Gravity Probe B experiment. Qualitatively, frame-dragging can be viewed as the gravitational analog of electromagnetic induction.

Also, an inner region is dragged more than an outer region. This produces interesting locally rotating frames."........

Some kind of "frames of reference" My arse framed, your arse framed and those others arse's framed?

We do not see/observer gravitational spactime tho..doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that. We only see occupied space aka fermions and bosons and any combination thereof.

Again no rocket scientist needed to grasp these relatively simple concepts. imho.

r6

r6

Good stuff r6

 

[brucep]

I thought it was also called frame dragging. Geodectic would make more sense to me.

As I recall it was the spinning motion of mass--- or even semi-linear motion of mass --- that dragged gravitational spacetime--- where frames is involved no idea ---.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

..."Rotational frame-dragging (the Lense–Thirring effect) appears in the general principle of relativity and similar theories in the vicinity of rotating massive objects. Under the Lense–Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks the fastest is one which is revolving around the object as viewed by a distant observer. This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object will move past the massive object faster than light moving against the rotation, as seen by a distant observer. It is now the best known frame-dragging effect, partly thanks to the Gravity Probe B experiment. Qualitatively, frame-dragging can be viewed as the gravitational analog of electromagnetic induction.

Also, an inner region is dragged more than an outer region. This produces interesting locally rotating frames."........

Some kind of "frames of reference" My arse framed, your arse framed and those others arse's framed?

We do not see/observer gravitational spactime tho..doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that. We only see occupied space aka fermions and bosons and any combination thereof.

Again no rocket scientist needed to grasp these relatively simple concepts. imho.

r6

r6

Read the link that 'Id" provided which he called 'dismal failure'. The geodetic effect and frame dragging are different natural phenomena predicted by GR. There's a name the Kerr geometry has for local proper frame observers being frame dragged. Ring Riders. Starting on pg F-13 the discussion on the Ring Rider metric begins.
Pick Project F The Spinning Black Hole.
http://www.eftaylor.com/download.html#general_relativity