At Rest with our Hubble view

[rr6]

Ring Riders--Concentric Circles On Equatorial Plane

Hi Bcep, its actually at end of pg 16 Chapter/part 9.

I flunked 9th grade math, so, what I do understand, is the things--- ex planets ---orbit faster around a central object, the shorter that orbital radius is.

So if there was something there that is presented there, that is not as my given above, and is not specific stating dragging space or gravitatational spacetime, then I'm not sure what there is of significance for me to grasp.

I appreciate any specific elaborations you state, that do not involve complex formulae, or differrent from what i stated previously in my last and initial reply to your post.

1) orbit faster with shorter radius---we get,

2) mass motion-- semi-linear or curved --- drags gravitational spacetime, I grasp tho not understand or comprehend completely,

3) wheeinr inexactly is there any thing that identifies this observance of gravitational spacetime.

Formulae are not going to do anything for me, unless very simple like 1 + 1 = 4 synergetically speaking of course

Thx for any clear, and simple elaboration that gets to the point #3 above and that ID suggests.

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

 

[brucep]

Hi Bcep, its actually at end of pg 16 Chapter/part 9.

I flunked 9th grade math, so, what I do understand, is the things--- ex planets ---orbit faster around a central object, the shorter that orbital radius is.

So if there was something there that is presented there, that is not as my given above, and is not specific stating dragging space or gravitatational spacetime, then I'm not sure what there is of significance for me to grasp.

I appreciate any specific elaborations you state, that do not involve complex formulae, or differrent from what i stated previously in my last and initial reply to your post.

1) orbit faster with shorter radius---we get,

2) mass motion-- semi-linear or curved --- drags gravitational spacetime, I grasp tho not understand or comprehend completely,

3) wheeinr inexactly is there any thing that identifies this observance of gravitational spacetime.

Formulae are not going to do anything for me, unless very simple like 1 + 1 = 4 synergetically speaking of course

Thx for any clear, and simple elaboration that gets to the point #3 above and that ID suggests.

The metric is a tool for evaluating an objects natural path through the gravitational field. The natural path is freefall. The natural path of the Ring Riders is 'at rest' [on the ring] in the local proper frame of the ring rider/ring. The rings are constructs to help us do the evaluation of the path of the Ring Riders. This path of Ring Riders has angular velocity and no angular momentum. What would be the prediction for the angular velocity of Ring Riders in the extremal Kerr spacetime. Extremal in this case means the Kerr Black Hole is rotating to the limit c. For his case the equation becomes really simple.

Instead of

dphi/dt = 2M^2/rR^2

it becomes

dphi/dt = 1/2M

This is pretty interesting since the Extremal result concludes the rate of angular velocity doesn't rely on r. Makes sense when you think about it. Since the rotation parameter is 1 over all r. A rotation parameter of 1 means the black hole is rotating to the limit c. For example the black hole we call Cygnus X-1 has a rotation parameter of .75.

 

[Undefined]

Thanks for your response, Tach (although you a still appear to be a little too fond of gratuitous namecalling for polite conversation. You would do well to expedite and redouble your efforts to correct your still quite unhealthy level of fondness for insult please).

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

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

Dear Tach, you seem to have missed some important context, as usual. Please note the word "supposedly" which qualifies the context of the whole section of my post from which you extracted that bit you quoted.

If you would bother to try and understand the context, then you would realize that I only conditionally allowed your supposed "spiral path" explanation in case #2 only for the purposes of moving on to my further question to you about case #1; wherein it was I that originally pointed out to you in that further question that such a supposed "spiral path" explanation does not apply, and so I asked for your further "consistent explanation" for the slowing in the radial case, #1.

Note again that I was the one to point out to you the absence of the supposed spiral path of case #1 when I asked you to give your further "explanation" for that different (radial) case. So the difference was already clearly understood by me; so your purported "correction" above is again "spurious" and based on your own misconstruction of what I actually said/implied by the context of my questions to you so far.

So please stop pretending you are "correcting" me on that point. It is obvious to all that your "correction" is spurious given the exchange so far. Your obtuseness is no longer "cute", as you have overworked it to death (especially back in Pete's threads, remember?). Please try proper and honest reading and understanding if you wish to be taken seriously in future. Thanks.

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.

You were the one to bring up the "orbit of photon" when replying to my question about case #1 (radial) where such a thing is not involved. So how can you now come back with such an obvious non-sequitur "correction" and hope to get away with it?

So that your usual reading confusions and spurious "corrections" can be avoided as much as possible in future, please try again (this time clearly, properly and with full supporting arguments) and give us your "explanation" as to the cause of rate slowing in case #1 (radial). Thanks.

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.

Mainstream says gravitational potential is due to the state of "curvature". Markus Hanke (and others) logically and empirically note that "curvature is energy, and you agree with him/them. And gravitational potentials imply energy potentials. And energy potential differences imply energy density differences along the radial energy gradient of GR gravity wells associated with the body generating same in surrounding space regions.

So please "explain" exactly why you keep claiming that gravitational energy density variations along the radial of a GR gravity well region of space "do not exist" (to quote your totally unsupported opinion above: "There is no such thing as "gravitational energy density", you can lay off your repeated crackpottery"). Thanks.

Much obliged anyway for your responses to date, Tach. I'll catch up with your further responses as soon as I can. Bye for now.

 

[Aqueous Id]

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

Sure is. What a rush it must have been for the folks who produced it, realizing how the angle and background were so perfect. Plus, knowing that folks would come behind to admire it, and them, and all the technology that made this possible. . . But don't let that stop you from repressing the progress of science by inserting the usual amount of mainstream rant you were programmed for back at Satan U. :mufc:

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

Yeah, the truth is not only stranger than fiction, it's downright awesome. Of course that's just indoctrination telling us that.

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].

You are right about the level of accomplishment. Even the backstory is one of the great examples of invention and determination for mainstream robots ever to pull off. And the significance of the measurement - such precision - also a testament to payload delivery, stability of the orbit and calibration. Just mind-boggling all around. Corroborating what you've said, straight from the horse's mouth, and esp. for the resident crackpots:

GP-B is measuring both the predicted geodetic effect, the amount by which the Earth’s presence is warping its local spacetime. Concurrently, and even more important, GP-B is measuring the predicted frame-dragging effect . . .​

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168808main_gp-b_pfar_cvr-pref-execsum.pdf

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.

:wtf:

Just for the record:

There has been experimental evidence for the curvature of spacetime by a massive object since the early part of this century (1922) . . . Since that time, astronomers have observed other instances of the curvature of spacetime near massive objects. One example is (etc.) . . . ​

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970610.html

By now it should be abundantly evident that aether couldn't even come close to connecting the dots. The truth really is stranger than fiction, isn't it. Then there's all the Twilight Zone stuff, like light traveling in . . . hold onto your seats . . straight lines . . .
:jawdrop:

 

[Tach]

If you would bother to try and understand the context, then you would realize that I only conditionally allowed your supposed "spiral path" explanation in case #2

It doesn't matter what you "allow" since you have demonstrated to be totally ignorant on the subject. Even after I cited you the exact page and paragraph in a standard textbook, you still refuse to read and learn.

 

[Undefined]

No one has ever observed curved spacetime and never will.

You mean you haven't.

Hi Aqueous Id. If you are going to personally disparage someone, you may want to be better prepared in your understandings of the actual 'status quo' mainstream understandings regarding that point. What is observed is phenomena which we theoretically interpret as "curved spacetime" according to an abstract geometrical "spacetime" analytical construct. In short, the actual observation is the effects in "space and motions", not the cause of gravity nor the abstract "spaceTIME" construct itself. We measure and quantify and postulate about gravity effects observed. Interpretations of effects is not actual "observation", but rather "theoretical overlay" on those observed effects. Take a breath and step back from the "personal baggage" which may be leading you to make such faulty "retorts" from emotional rather than objective scientific understandings of the status quo proper regarding gravity "explanations" etc. I leave you and q_w to carry on your conversation, hopefully on a better note in future? Good luck to both of you.

 

[Undefined]

For the benefit of objective readers (especially moderators and genuine members) of this exchange with Tach, please note my post #903. Then please note what Tach posts as his idea of 'honest engagement' and 'proper support' for his claims during our relevant exchange so far.

Here is his 'scientifically argued' response to my post #903 and prior questions/challenges regarding his insistent but so far unsupported claims 'to know' and to "correct" etc:

If you would bother to try and understand the context, then you would realize that I only conditionally allowed your supposed "spiral path" explanation in case #2

It doesn't matter what you "allow" since you have demonstrated to be totally ignorant on the subject. Even after I cited you the exact page and paragraph in a standard textbook, you still refuse to read and learn.

Tach picks out one snippet out of context and proceeds to evade the issues raised about his own competence to understand those issues let alone discuss them properly without spurious claims and gratuitous insults. Not nice for a 'supposed scientist' such as he claims to be and representing himself as 'mainstream', yes?

 

[quantum_wave]

...
I leave you and q_w to carry on your conversation, hopefully on a better note in future? Good luck to both of you.

Thank you, undefined, for trying to encourage civility. It isn't hard to tell that there is no point in me even reading his posts. He will soon fall back on the old tired claim, "there you go, you won't even listen to the good advice from the really smart people who try to help you", :shrug:.

 

[quantum_wave]

For the benefit of objective readers (especially moderators and genuine members) of this exchange with Tach, please note my post #903. Then please note what Tach posts as his idea of 'honest engagement' and 'proper support' for his claims during our relevant exchange so far.

Here is his 'scientifically argued' response to my post #903 and prior questions/challenges regarding his insistent but so far unsupported claims 'to know' and to "correct" etc:



Tach picks out one snippet out of context and proceeds to evade the issues raised about his own competence to understand those issues let alone discuss them properly without spurious claims and gratuitous insults. Not nice for a 'supposed scientist' such as he claims to be and representing himself as 'mainstream', yes?

Funny. No accounting for professional ethics.

 

[Tach]

Thank you, undefined, for trying to encourage civility. It isn't hard to tell that there is no point in me even reading his posts. He will soon fall back on the old tired claim, "there you go, you won't even listen to the good advice from the really smart people who try to help you", :shrug:.

Leave you and Undefined flatter and congratulate each other for the crackpotteries you two are posting. Much easier posting BS than learning a little science, eh?

 

[Undefined]

Leave you and Undefined flatter and congratulate each other for the crackpotteries you two are posting. Much easier posting BS than learning a little science, eh?

Let's see, a choice between polite conversation on scientific issues, and gratuitous insults in lieu of polite conversation on scientific issues. Not a difficult choice for most. Good luck with your choice, Tach. See you round.

 

[quantum_wave]

So, the hypothesis was that there is gravitaitonal wave energy, and I posted a couple of links to quantum gravity articles. I guess tach didn't mean there was no QG after he said everything I said was wrong. He posted a statement about not having said there was no gravitational wave energy, or something to the like; he does have a problem communicating on science issues when the response doesn't call for equations, or doesn't think QG is science, or thinks I'm arrogant by talking about it, or that I am saying GR is wrong, or is that AI saying that :shrug I don't read or at least don't remember the details of the posts that are filled with disdain, so that might mean trash was said that I didn't read. What I think tach means is that there is no gravitational wave energy or wave energy density unless he says there is, but maybe he will think I'm being argumentative just because he is.

Another complaint was that I'm not a scientist, or maybe I just twisted that from being told I don't use the words and math of GR and so everything I say stimulates a response about me and the words, and not about the intended content. Smirk, sorry troll.

Several got their panties in a swivel over me saying you can't see curved spacetime. Will anyone get upset when I say you can't see gravitational wave energy either. I doubt it. I used to think little or no moderation was better than too much, but there is clearly a call for some, and it is not a call to ban people for posting on science topics that interest them even if they are not credentially science professionals; and I have asked that the tread be moved to Alternative Theories when it became alternative.

It seems that half of those responding yesterday were trolling for an argument or just wanted to be antagonistic. There were words put into my mouth, false interpretations, and obvious uncivil ginned up disdain. I'm just saying, you are the ones bringing the forum down, not me. How many times will that statement be the target today. Who will accuse me of disdain for posting it in response to disdain?

Look in the intended on-topic content for your responses, or ignore me, and you are a valued member. Farsight proved me wrong when I said he might not be able to resist responding to my alternative ideas, and even though he didn't agree with much other than the comment, "The speed of light is governed by the energy density of the environment through which it passes", we have to have a lot in common to even agree on that. I don't blame him for taking the day off yesterday considering the ignorant disdain he receives from people who would rather see the forum go the hell than to ignore him. What is past is past and we don't need to know who wrote what if he doesn't push his book here.

Now maybe this is getting to the point of ranting, so here is the content to respond to. Gravitational wave energy, if there is such a thing, will not be observable any more that curved spacetime is observable, and the same observations support GR just as well as they do wave energy density. The math of GR works just as well for the wave energy density of space because it has the same effect on the motion of objects. We don't know if there is quantum gravity. If there is quantum gravity it will work at both the quantum level and the macro level. GR will not work at the quantum level.

Everyone agree? Why or why not.

(views tot. 18856 now)

 

[rr6]

Ring Rider Expalnation( math ) Lacks Observance of Graviational Spacetime. imho

Thx Bcep, I realize now that;

1) I misinterpreted some of the info cause I did not pay close enough attention what i was reading,

2) I did not read any of the info explanations that contiuned on page 17 etc for "Ring Riders"


I skimmed through the complete section 9, tho I was tired at the time. I guess what I've not got from you and was asking, is wherein that section 9 or anywhere else can point me that validates ID or your inference/suggesting that we see a curved gravitation spacetime?

We see fermions and some bosons--- and/or their resultant effects and with gravitational spacetime we do no see it, only its resultant effects.

That is what QW was stating or infering or suggesting. So a water bubble is space is spherical, So are most planets if not moons approximating a spherical. When we look at moon, planet or water bubble outside of Earth gravity field, we seeing a collection of fermions bosons as aggreate complex substances we call rock or matter or earth etc.....

Not curved gravitiational spacetime. People do not look at a planet an say, look at the pretty curved gravitational spacetime.

Lee Smolin predicted suggests humans will quantify gravity by 2015 approximatly via geometry.

To observe a graviton i.e. to observe gravity( gravitational spacetime ) we would need a particle accelarator the size of solar system to harness enough power to pop-out a graviton from the gravitational spacetime field.

QW is correct and I appear to be correct on our assessment that

The metric is a tool for evaluating an objects natural path through the gravitational field. The natural path is freefall. The natural path of the Ring Riders is 'at rest' [on the ring] in the local proper frame of the ring rider/ring. The rings are constructs to help us do the evaluation of the path of the Ring Riders. This path of Ring Riders has angular velocity and no angular momentum. What would be the prediction for the angular velocity of Ring Riders in the extremal Kerr spacetime. Extremal in this case means the Kerr Black Hole is rotating to the limit c. For his case the equation becomes really simple.Instead of
dphi/dt = 2M^2/rR^2it becomesdphi/dt = 1/2M
This is pretty interesting since the Extremal result concludes the rate of angular velocity doesn't rely on r. Makes sense when you think about it. Since the rotation parameter is 1 over all r. A rotation parameter of 1 means the black hole is rotating to the limit c. For example the black hole we call Cygnus X-1 has a rotation parameter of .75.

 

[quantum_wave]

Thx Bcep, I realize now that;

1) I misinterpreted some of the info cause I did not pay close enough attention what i was reading,

2) I did not read any of the info explanations that contiuned on page 17 etc for "Ring Riders"


I skimmed through the complete section 9, tho I was tired at the time. I guess what I've not got from you and was asking, is wherein that section 9 or anywhere else can point me that validates ID or your inference/suggesting that we see a curved gravitation spacetime?

We see fermions and some bosons--- and/or their resultant effects and with gravitational spacetime we do no see it, only its resultant effects.

That is what QW was stating or infering or suggesting. So a water bubble is space is spherical, So are most planets if not moons approximating a spherical. When we look at moon, planet or water bubble outside of Earth gravity field, we seeing a collection of fermions bosons as aggreate complex substances we call rock or matter or earth etc.....

Not curved gravitiational spacetime. People do not look at a planet an say, look at the pretty curved gravitational spacetime.

Lee Smolin predicted suggests humans will quantify gravity by 2015 approximatly via geometry.

To observe a graviton i.e. to observe gravity( gravitational spacetime ) we would need a particle accelarator the size of solar system to harness enough power to pop-out a graviton from the gravitational spacetime field.

QW is correct and I appear to be correct on our assessment that

That is true. I'm going to send you a "friend" request. Accept it at your own risk.

 

[Tach]

That is true. I'm going to send you a "friend" request. Accept it at your own risk.

Yeah, you "scientists" stick together, especially when it comes to polluting the science forums with anti-mainstream stuff, like the denial of spacetime curvature being the cause for gravitational lensing. Way to go, "quantum".

 

[hansda]

What exactly did you submit? Have you got more than "Every action has got an unique technique."?

More about my theory can be seen here.

 

[quantum_wave]

Yeah, you "scientists" stick together, especially when it comes to polluting the science forums with anti-mainstream stuff, like the denial of spacetime curvature being the cause for gravitational lensing. Way to go, "quantum".

Funny. Strawman about us claiming to be scientists, and as for sticking together you mean like you and your friends who have effectively ruined SciForums science boards? Way to go to you too.

Now as for the strawman about denying spacetime curvature is the cause for gravitational lensing, are you saying that it is? If so you would be just as wrong as me if I said it isn't; and I am just offering an hypothesis for discussion that has as much evidence as curved theory has because everything observable fits both. So if you want science, get off your high horse and discuss science, if not ignore me and I will ignore you and that would be my preference. And let's decide soon becuase I want to discuss QG as the hypothesis under so called discussion pertains to the gravitational wave energy density in our Hubble view.

 

[Tach]

Funny. Strawman about us claiming to be scientists, and as for sticking together you mean like you and your friends who have effectively ruined SciForums science boards?

...by poking at your crank claims? How does it ruin the forum?

and I am just offering an hypothesis for discussion that has as much evidence as curved thoery has because everything observable fits both.

Nope, it doesn't since your "hypothesis" has been debunked by several of us poking at it.

if not ignore me

I don't want to ignore you, I want to point out the falsity of the BS you are trying to pass as science.

 

[quantum_wave]

...by poking at your crank claims? How does it ruin the forum?





Nope, it doesn't since your "hypothesis" has been debunked by several of us poking at it.



I don't want to ignore you, I want to point out the falsity of the BS you are trying to pass as science.

Have it your way.
Edit: interestingly all of your posts just went away .

 

[Aqueous Id]

Hi Aqueous Id.

That salutation is familiar. I have a feeling you've sparred with me before.

If you are going to personally disparage someone, you may want to be better prepared in your understandings of the actual 'status quo' mainstream understandings regarding that point.

Let's go there. But first, let's be sure that any heat in the kitchen is entirely self-inflicted.

What is observed is phenomena which we theoretically interpret as "curved spacetime" according to an abstract geometrical "spacetime" analytical construct. In short, the actual observation is the effects in "space and motions", not the cause of gravity nor the abstract "spaceTIME" construct itself.

You should pursue this one of two ways. One is to cut to the chase and divulge your fringe theory, and the second is to follow the factual predicate which went like this

No one has ever observed curved spacetime and never will.

which I answered with grav. lensing and Gravity Probe B. That lays the predicate for any controverting fact or evidence you want to bring to refute my claim and reinstate q_w's.

We measure and quantify and postulate about gravity effects observed. Interpretations of effects is not actual "observation", but rather "theoretical overlay" on those observed effects.

You sound like a person who has no actual field/lab experience.

Take a breath and step back from the "personal baggage" which may be leading you to make such faulty "retorts" from emotional rather than objective scientific understandings of the status quo proper regarding gravity "explanations" etc.

Submit your claim ticket to q_w. He was last seen raiding the university depot, smashing the briefcases, burning the books and shredding the class notes. I just happen to be one of the folks who's already passed through, so no sweat off my back. You won't hear anything different from me than you're already getting. I just happen to couch ideas this particular way.