Shown solutions to physics problems in lucid dream
- Thread starter BertBonsai
- Start date
Ah, its funny you believe that. Shame the evidence is to the contrary.
When you've got something worthwhile let us know, nothing yet presented from you has lived up to your claims.
I explained a bound on the parameter space. You failed to understand the concepts I was talking about and only managed to grasp that I'd said 'mass' at some point. As a result you've demanded I provide something I never claimed to have and now that I've explained this to you all you can come back with is complaining I still haven't provided something I never said I'd provided or implied I could provide. You have failed to grasp what I've said and you're trying to blame me. Perhaps you should look in your teacher notes?
Well done on failing to grasp what I said. I've provided explanations, book references and offered to provide more. If you beleive I'm wrong then submit your work to a journal. You came to this forum to get the views of others. You'll be hard pressed to find someone more familiar with this area of physics than myself and anyone else of that level I'm certain will agree with me. If you do not wish to consider the views of said people then feel free to go over our heads and submit your work to a journal. I'm confident they'll say much the same, your work doesn't live up to your claims. No doubt you'll complain a conspiracy of silence. That's the thing with cranks, its everyone elses fault but theirs.
No, my post clearly talked about bounds. The fact I explained the bound in detail doesn't mean I was thinking of a specific mass. I think you might need to understand the concepts of 'bounds'. I can recommend a book or two if you wish.
No, I talked about bounds throughout. Besides, its irrelevant since if my modified argument applies then it applies. You keep saying it shouldn't matter where information comes from, if its relevant, and yet you're not willing to live by your own ideals! The typical "Do as I say, not as I do".
You really should learn a bit of GR before you start telling others. If you're the teacher you should at least have read the material you cover in class, right? It seems to me you have read "GR limits to SR when gravitational effects are minimal" and now you're using it as a blunt instrument to convince yourself you don't need to know any GR.
Your argument is obviously false because in GR an object at r<2M cannot move along a time-like path to an R>r. If SR were valid for a region larger than a point then it would mean that the object could move away from the centre of the black hole. Inside a black hole SR is not valid more than point by point. But hey, how would I know anything about that, its not like I've read books on it, sat in lectures by professors, passed exams etc. Nothing compared to your....... utter lack of any knowledge, ability or rationality. Feel free to include that argument in any paper you write and submit to a journal, you'll get much the same back from the reviewer.
Go on then. Provide book and page references for any argument of mine you feel is false. For instance, that SR can be made valid in as large a region as you wish within a black hole event horizon, given a sufficiently massive mass. And once you fail to do that I'll provide you with the space-time light cone diagrams which were drawn by a Cambridge professor during a course entitled 'Black Holes' which prove what I said to be correct. And since I feel like driving the point home, said professor had had Hawking as his PhD supervisor many years before and said course was originally lectured by Hawking. But why should I listen to them when we've got your dreams to go by!
BertBonsai
Registered Senior Member
Did your teachers have to give you direct book references for everything they taught you, or else you dismissed it? Google for:
Tidal force is the only thing that distinguishes an inertial frame in a gravity-free universe from an inertial frame in our real universe. Therefore, the more massive the black hole, the larger can inertial frames below its horizon possibly be.
You either grasp that or you don't. Your inability to grasp it, or your illogically wanting more than that, doesn't make me wrong.
You are wrong, and nothing about a journal would prove anything. If you ever want to get beyond the student level you should stop this false line of reasoning.
BertBonsai
Registered Senior Member
That's false logic. That objects and frames below a horizon must move toward the central singularity says nothing about the maximum size of an inertial frame below a horizon. Only the tidal force determines the maximum size, for given experiment, and the tidal force throughout a light-year sized inertial frame below a horizon can be arbitrarily small, for a sufficiently massive black hole, even as the frame moves toward the singularity. Such frame can't last forever (because the tidal force in it increases), but it can last arbitrarily long, even billions of years on a clock at rest with respect to the frame, for a sufficiently massive black hole. Experiments of SR can be done within such inertial frame, for the duration of the frame, and those experiments can completely disregard that the frame is moving toward the central singularity.AlphaNumeric said:
BertBonsai
Registered Senior Member
A short review of where we're at in this discussion, according to me:
Alpha’s main objection, that SR cannot be used except for a point-sized region, and therefore is inapplicable for any experiment, is shown to be wrong just by looking at the experimental confirmation of SR. It’s also proven wrong by the rules for significant digits. No, when the gravitational acceleration g throughout the region in question varies only beyond the trillionth digit, say, that variation does not prevent SR from predicting a correct result at 10 significant digits, say. A full GR treatment would show the exact same result at 10 significant digits or else GR would be invalid. All of the variation of g would drop off as insignificant before anything is input into any of the equations. That’s obviously correct logic, so no further proof is needed. I'm also supported by numerous texts, some of which I've referenced above.
Alpha’s other objection, that black holes necessarily come into play and refute me, is incorrect. I haven’t fixed the volume for any planet I’ve used, and black holes require a given mass within a sufficiently small volume. Further, the planets I’ve used were only for the purpose of validating my equations. Once validated, the real application is to show initial acceleration away on the Earth or other planet, which requires only an arbitrarily small region. I showed acceleration away for the Earth within a decimeter of height, for a projectile launched at 0.95c. The equations could be used to prove that initial acceleration away occurs at 0.95c or higher for any smaller height and for any g (but I won’t prove here).
- I’ve proven here, using an application of published SR equations (from an authoritative source), that a projectile launched directly upward from the Earth or other planet, at a speed close to the speed of light, initially accelerates away as measured by a ground observer.
- "Accelerates away" means that the change in distance to it per unit time increases, as the ground observer measures.
- I've given the relevant SR equations, and have shown a 5-point match to the predictions at the Relativistic Rocket site, 4 of those matches for the same type of story problem (projectile launched directly upward by an accelerating observer).
- I've used the equations to show a match to Newton's prediction, when the projectile is launched at a speed that is a small fraction of the speed of light.
- I’ve given a source to show that SR applies to a sufficiently small region. I’ve given a source to show that GR’s principle of equivalence implies that the SR equations I’m using work for a uniform gravitational field. Therefore it’s fine to use SR to determine a finding of initial acceleration away.
- I’ve shown that the notion of space itself expanding is superfluous to explain Hubble’s finding that most of the galaxies we observe are receding from one another.
- I’ve noted that when space itself does not expand or contract, it can be flat by default globally, in intergalactic regions and for any range, the same as it is (observed to be) flat by default locally. This solves the flatness problem. See "The Solution to the Flatness Problem" above.
- I’ve shown that when space itself does not expand or contract, the finding of initial acceleration away can be used to explain the observation that high-redshift supernovae are accelerating away from us. The explanation does not require using SR beyond its scope of applicability (i.e. outside of a sufficiently small region); it employs GR’s gravitational time dilation to properly account for the curvature of spacetime between astronomers and those supernovae. Too long to recap here—see “The Solution to the Dark Energy Problem” above.
- I’ve shown that the solution to the dark energy problem also resolves the horizon problem. See “The Solution to the Horizon Problem” above.
- I thank the physicist in my dream for helping me see these things.
Alpha’s main objection, that SR cannot be used except for a point-sized region, and therefore is inapplicable for any experiment, is shown to be wrong just by looking at the experimental confirmation of SR. It’s also proven wrong by the rules for significant digits. No, when the gravitational acceleration g throughout the region in question varies only beyond the trillionth digit, say, that variation does not prevent SR from predicting a correct result at 10 significant digits, say. A full GR treatment would show the exact same result at 10 significant digits or else GR would be invalid. All of the variation of g would drop off as insignificant before anything is input into any of the equations. That’s obviously correct logic, so no further proof is needed. I'm also supported by numerous texts, some of which I've referenced above.
Alpha’s other objection, that black holes necessarily come into play and refute me, is incorrect. I haven’t fixed the volume for any planet I’ve used, and black holes require a given mass within a sufficiently small volume. Further, the planets I’ve used were only for the purpose of validating my equations. Once validated, the real application is to show initial acceleration away on the Earth or other planet, which requires only an arbitrarily small region. I showed acceleration away for the Earth within a decimeter of height, for a projectile launched at 0.95c. The equations could be used to prove that initial acceleration away occurs at 0.95c or higher for any smaller height and for any g (but I won’t prove here).
Bert, I went through your post #89 in detail as well as the source. Note that the source deals only with an accelerating rocket and a point fixed in space with respect to the rocket's original rest frame, there's no mention of projectiles. I looked at your equations for the projectile and it didn't make sense to me that factors like "$$\gamma_{proj}$$" were appearing, so I did the math myself, and I'm pretty confident you've incorrectly applied the equations of SR to this situation.
Consider a rocket accelerating at rate $$g$$, where $$g$$ is taken to be positive along some axis, "z". Let $$D$$ be the distance from the rocket to the projectile at a given instant in the rocket's frame of reference, and let the time read by the rocket's clock be $$T$$, set to $$T=0$$ at launch. If the projectile is launched at velocity $$u$$ along the z-axis defined above, then the relationship between $$D$$ and $$T$$ is:
$$D=\frac{c^2}{g}\left(\frac{2}{e^{gT/c}(1-u/c)+e^{-gT/c}(1+u/c)}~-~1\right)$$
Here are some plots I made for various values of $$u$$. I'm only allowed 3 images per post and I don't want to be accused of spamming, so I've put all the plots I made into an album for anyone who's interested in seeing the rest. The time axis is labelled in units of $$c/g$$, the distance axis is labelled in units of $$c^2/g$$. The results are clear: if you launch a projectile and then chase it with a rocket producing a constant thrust, the rocket eventually catches the projectile and then surpasses it. There's only one exception, and that's when the projectile is launched at the speed of light ($$u=c$$), and I included it in the album for the sake of completeness.
Without further ado:
If you wanted to naively treat gravity on a Special Relativistic footing and pretend the whole universe is filled with a uniform gravitational field, the Earthbound observer would experience the same effects as an observer on a rocket accelerating towards whatever space beacon was being targeted.
Consider a rocket accelerating at rate $$g$$, where $$g$$ is taken to be positive along some axis, "z". Let $$D$$ be the distance from the rocket to the projectile at a given instant in the rocket's frame of reference, and let the time read by the rocket's clock be $$T$$, set to $$T=0$$ at launch. If the projectile is launched at velocity $$u$$ along the z-axis defined above, then the relationship between $$D$$ and $$T$$ is:
$$D=\frac{c^2}{g}\left(\frac{2}{e^{gT/c}(1-u/c)+e^{-gT/c}(1+u/c)}~-~1\right)$$
Here are some plots I made for various values of $$u$$. I'm only allowed 3 images per post and I don't want to be accused of spamming, so I've put all the plots I made into an album for anyone who's interested in seeing the rest. The time axis is labelled in units of $$c/g$$, the distance axis is labelled in units of $$c^2/g$$. The results are clear: if you launch a projectile and then chase it with a rocket producing a constant thrust, the rocket eventually catches the projectile and then surpasses it. There's only one exception, and that's when the projectile is launched at the speed of light ($$u=c$$), and I included it in the album for the sake of completeness.
Without further ado:
If you wanted to naively treat gravity on a Special Relativistic footing and pretend the whole universe is filled with a uniform gravitational field, the Earthbound observer would experience the same effects as an observer on a rocket accelerating towards whatever space beacon was being targeted.
Unlike you my teachers had demonstrated understanding and ability in order to earn their position at the universities I have attended. They didn't get their position because they had a dream and could fill in a forum registration form.
I'm well aware that you can survive into a black hole, provided its massive enough. In fact the quote you quote so extremely close to things I've said on this and other forums so you're not saying anything I haven't already heard. But you're over simplifying it (as I've said throughout). At the event horizon all light cones are 'tipped' such that no time-like or light-like paths lead to increasing r (in the Schwarzchild coordinate sense) and while you can, for an instant, pick SR coordinates which view such light cones are you could view them in a flat space-time there is no choice of coordinates (ie up to Lorentz transformations at the light cone apex) which is going to lead you to being able to say your description of the space-time in a region can neglect GR considerations. Point by point you can have SR coordinates and point by point you can do non-gravitational calculations but you must distinguish between an SR frame whose 'global orientation' is affected by the underlying gravitational field and an SR frame which is akin to a flat space frame. Its hard to explain without diagrams.
Ah, the "I'm so sure I'm right I don't even have to submit my work" line of reasoning. Good one. If you're not interested in getting your work to the research community then why are you here? If you don't (or won't) get your work to their attention and you're ignoring any and all people here with sufficient knowledge to be able to evaluate your claims then it would seem you're here simply to try to convince those who are unable to evaluate your work properly that you're intelligent or on to something. Hence you're not here for any honest reason, only to try to convince suckers you're a physics whiz. Nice trolling.
I'll help you typeset your work for a reputable GR journal if you wish, I have no fear about you getting published. If you're so sure you're right then show it.
Typical crank 'summary', paraphrasing to the point of lying. I never said it can't be right unless a journal approves, I said that if you aren't willing to listen to what the GR experienced people here have to say then go over our heads. You can't have your work properly evaluated by someone who doesn't know any GR. You obviously don't think anyone here knows enough GR so go to a journal, which will have people who know enough GR. You can't simultaneously denounce our ability to evaluate your work and yet refuse to show your work to people whose credentials you can't argue with. If I'm 'the student' then why not send your work to people who are much more informed than me?
You've solved a fundamentally GR thing by restricting all your considerations to SR. Well done, stellar logic. I've yet to see you produce anything to justify your claims on solving said GR problems other than a few lines of arm waving text.
No, you're once again paraphrasing to the point of lying, If you continue to do this I'm going to start reporting your posts. I said that you need to be careful when it comes to the size of regions you use an SR approximation. If you want an exact result then you can't consider regions larger than a point but if you've got some non-zero error tolerance then you can consider larger regions. The question is how large for a given effect in a given system. I demonstrated that you cannot simultaneously pick a mass, a distance and a gravitational acceleration and expect SR to be always a valid approximation, picking two of them puts bounds on the third. You failed to even understand what I said, never mind retort it. But that stems from the fact you obviously can't do GR, which is part of why you cling to SR so much, you're in over your head (more so) if you were forced to do GR.
You blindly applied rocket equations, which I explained as being on dangerous footing, and now Cpt has given a more in depth examination. Part of your problem is you don't know how to construct the relevant equations, as you have no understanding or knowledge of the underlying model, and so you're only able to put in numbers to equations other people have found. You've been unable to do the calculations for a rocket and a projectile yourself, as Cpt has, and hence you have absolutely no way to confirm or falsify your results for yourself. Its a common crank problem, you don't know how to do anything in the model so you blindly jumble about equations whose origins you don't know and whose applicability you don't understand.
But if you think I and others are all wrong on this then submit to a journal. And to be clear (since you obviously have trouble grasping this point), I'm not saying "Its only considered right when a journal says so", I'm saying that if you think the posters here are insufficiently educated/knowledgeable to be able to evaluate your claims then going to a journal is the fastest easiest way to get people who are sufficiently educated and knowledgeable to see your work. If you think we're falling short then find people who definitely aren't.
BertBonsai
Registered Senior Member
You haven’t debunked me, CptBork. Instead you’ve confirmed for yourself one of the greatest findings in physics of the last 50 years. Watch closely:
Here’s what my equations show for u = 0.9999c and g = -1:
That’s the same as your last graph above. Likewise, for your other values for u, my equations reproduce your graphs.
Agreed, and sure, I didn’t say otherwise. The rocket does that just like (per the principle of equivalence) a projectile that is launched directly upward from the ground in a uniform gravitational field eventually falls to the ground and then down a shaft. My story problems about a projectile concerned mostly the projectile’s motion between its launch and its apex, but my graphs showed the rocket eventually catching the projectile and surpassing it, like yours do.
Or you could simply limit yourself to a sufficiently small region, and thereby ignore the variation of the gravitational field because it’s beyond the precision of your experiment. That’s what all experiments that have confirmed SR have necessarily done (google for it):
Here’s the amazing thing you’ve confirmed: Your last two graphs above show that a projectile launched directly upward from the Earth (or other planet) at a speed close to the speed of light accelerates away from the ground observer, initially. That’s the opposite of what you thought in post 13. It’s a discovery outside the annals of physics until now. (Unfortunately it’s also relegated to forlorn pseudoscience sections of forums like this one, as all such amazing discoveries are nowadays.)
What free objects have astronomers observed accelerating away from us? High-redshift supernovae, the basis of the dark energy problem. Hmm, now those supernovae are also receding at a speed close to the speed of light... See post 102 for an explanation that ties the two together to solve the dark energy problem, and the horizon problem, without using SR beyond its domain of applicability.
BertBonsai
Registered Senior Member
Then put two & two together. If you can survive, then the tidal force on your body isn’t too great. If the tidal force isn’t too great, then there can be a body-sized inertial frame there. To enlarge the inertial frame at that r-coordinate, simply enlarge the mass of the black hole, with no limit. All that SR requires is an inertial frame.
It’s hard for you to explain because it’s gobbledygook. I know all about light cones; they don’t make your case here. In principle, entire galaxies, or superclusters, can be beneath an event horizon. People in those galaxies can conduct experiments of SR across large distances, like light years. Nothing about black holes prevents that. But go ahead and break out your light cone diagram. Lots of those on the interweb.
Here’s a better question: Why is stuff you can’t refute unworthy of a discussion forum? It’s a Science. Discussion. Forum. You bring up the journals ad nauseam because it’s a straw you can grasp. Quit leaning on the journal red herring and start refuting my arguments if you can.
But I read your stuff, and refuted all you said. With references too. I've enjoyed the challenge and the discussion.
Not everyone here is a student. Like CptBork. Who says I don't enjoy discussion with students? Plus there's always a chance I can learn something new too.
But I didn’t restrict myself to SR there. I employed a fuller GR treatment.
Yes, with no upper limit on the size of the region, in principle.
So what? I didn’t put a bound on all three of those. Where did you see me fix the mass? For any given distance above the surface of a planet (my sufficiently small region), and any given gravitational acceleration at its surface, there is always a mass that satisfies those givens. In fact there is a mass that makes the tidal force in my given sufficiently small region as small as I choose, so that SR is accurate to a higher precision.
Let the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the planet be 1 Earth gravity. Let my sufficiently small region that rests on the planet’s surface be 1 light year tall. Can any size planet have a gravitational acceleration at its surface = 1 Earth gravity? Sure. Then just make the planet as large as needed for my sufficiently small region. Whatever mass that planet has, satisfies my two givens. To decrease the tidal force in my sufficiently small region even further, I simply make the planet larger.
I understood it, and it was wrong, as I noted before and again here. Let’s recall what you said before:
This is refuted (again) by what I said above. And black holes need not come into play.
I use SR alone when that’s all that’s needed. Where more is needed, I use GR or other logic. I don’t use GR where it’s overkill, like you do.
That’s hilarious. For the same inputs CptBork and I get the same results. CptBork independently verified my equations. Who’s the crank now? Your rationalization oughta be good. Let’s be clear too, what CptBork verified is one of the greatest discoveries in physics of the last 50 years.
Journal journal journal journal, you're a broken record. Can you prove they're the "fastest easiest way to get people who are sufficiently educated and knowledgeable" to see my work? I'll ask you to prove this claim every time you mention a journal. You couldn't begin to do so.
Hi Bert, yes indeed it seems your graphs match mine, or at least the ones I checked, and I did a quick check on that u=0.952c case as well. At least by eyeball it looks good, asymptotes look right when you plug in the units ($$c^2/g$$ should be ~1 light year). But I still don't think you did the derivation correctly. Firstly, your addition of velocities formula shouldn't involve a square root in the denominator. Check this link.
Secondly, you claim the following relation to complete your derivation:
$$D=d\gamma_{proj}/\gamma$$, and I believe that's also a mistake. Differences in time synchronization between different frames mean that a measurement one observer makes of two "simultaneous" things will actually be a measurement between two events which occurred at different times in other frames. If the rocket observer says two things are separated by a distance $$D$$ at a given instant, it's a different set of events compared to what the projectile or Earthbound observers measure when they make the same statements. You need to take full account of the Lorentz transformations in both space and time in order to do this calculation properly. Since you haven't sketched out a step-by-step derivation, I can only assume that either my derivation is mistaken, or else your errors somehow cancelled each other out.
Also I'd like to note, so there's no confusion as to what I'm doing: I'm assuming that the "rocket site" is using the correct equations and just looking for errors in how you apply them to your scenario. To be candid, I was a bit surprised because in a sense, it indeed looks like projectiles launched from a rocket would appear to be accelerating away from the rocket for some finite initial time period, even as the rocket in fact accelerates towards them. I did expect there to be a few screwy effects from changing coordinate frames, but I didn't expect it to be quite so pronounced. Also I believe this effect will occur even for projectiles launched at very small velocities, but the period of acceleration will be negligibly brief.
Nevertheless, I don't see anything terribly strange going on here. If I was travelling at near lightspeed across the galaxy and hit the brakes real hard, it could seem like distant stars suddenly took a 10 000 lightyear jump- that's just an effect from changing reference frames and thus my definitions of distance and time, it doesn't mean those stars ever felt any acceleration or went into hyperspace. You can't apply SR to a situation comparing Earth with distant planets or stars, because SR only works in scenarios where you can't distinguish the presence of a gravitational field. If I put you in a box on the Earth's surface, you have no way of knowing whether you're being pulled towards the Earth by gravity or whether you're in a rocket firing its thrusters out in deep space. If I let you peek out of the box and "talk" to distant objects, you'd be able to tell they're experiencing different g forces than you are, and thus you'd know you're actually in a gravitational field.
Think about it- if the infinitesimal localized approximation of SR at Earth's surface could be extrapolated to explain the cosmological constant, why does it make no difference whether the measurements are made at Earth's surface or on a satellite in orbit?
Secondly, you claim the following relation to complete your derivation:
$$D=d\gamma_{proj}/\gamma$$, and I believe that's also a mistake. Differences in time synchronization between different frames mean that a measurement one observer makes of two "simultaneous" things will actually be a measurement between two events which occurred at different times in other frames. If the rocket observer says two things are separated by a distance $$D$$ at a given instant, it's a different set of events compared to what the projectile or Earthbound observers measure when they make the same statements. You need to take full account of the Lorentz transformations in both space and time in order to do this calculation properly. Since you haven't sketched out a step-by-step derivation, I can only assume that either my derivation is mistaken, or else your errors somehow cancelled each other out.
Also I'd like to note, so there's no confusion as to what I'm doing: I'm assuming that the "rocket site" is using the correct equations and just looking for errors in how you apply them to your scenario. To be candid, I was a bit surprised because in a sense, it indeed looks like projectiles launched from a rocket would appear to be accelerating away from the rocket for some finite initial time period, even as the rocket in fact accelerates towards them. I did expect there to be a few screwy effects from changing coordinate frames, but I didn't expect it to be quite so pronounced. Also I believe this effect will occur even for projectiles launched at very small velocities, but the period of acceleration will be negligibly brief.
Nevertheless, I don't see anything terribly strange going on here. If I was travelling at near lightspeed across the galaxy and hit the brakes real hard, it could seem like distant stars suddenly took a 10 000 lightyear jump- that's just an effect from changing reference frames and thus my definitions of distance and time, it doesn't mean those stars ever felt any acceleration or went into hyperspace. You can't apply SR to a situation comparing Earth with distant planets or stars, because SR only works in scenarios where you can't distinguish the presence of a gravitational field. If I put you in a box on the Earth's surface, you have no way of knowing whether you're being pulled towards the Earth by gravity or whether you're in a rocket firing its thrusters out in deep space. If I let you peek out of the box and "talk" to distant objects, you'd be able to tell they're experiencing different g forces than you are, and thus you'd know you're actually in a gravitational field.
Think about it- if the infinitesimal localized approximation of SR at Earth's surface could be extrapolated to explain the cosmological constant, why does it make no difference whether the measurements are made at Earth's surface or on a satellite in orbit?
Last edited:
BertBonsai
Registered Senior Member
Good catch. That was a typo I ran out of time to edit. I had corrected that at post 92. It was only in the text, not my calculations.
My equations make such full accounting, and neither of us is wrong. If you play around with my equations you’d see that it’d be impossible for errors to be cancelling out. I noted that I have a 5-point match to the predictions at the rocket site—I’d have to be real genius to come up with such simple but invalid equations that do that. Then you’d have to be an even greater genius to independently derive a single equation that is equivalent to my set.
Although I haven’t “sketched out a step-by-step derivation”, if you look at the descriptions of the symbols and the equations you’ll see that I properly accounted for all the frames involved and the transformations between them. The rocket site deals with only two frames: the rocket’s accelerating frame (frame R), and the inertial frame in which the rocket started accelerating (frame S). The story problem involves a third frame, the projectile’s inertial frame (frame P). In R, frame S is length-contracting whereas frame P is length-uncontracting initially.
The effect occurs only at launch speeds close to c, like 0.95c or greater. If you zoom in on the apex of your last graph above, you’ll see what your equation predicts for a low launch speed, namely acceleration toward the ground. Of course that’s what we’re used to observing when we throw up a ball or whatever. Only at relativistic launch speeds does the uncontraction of frame P as measured in frame R outbalance the projectile's acceleration toward the ground, to change it to acceleration away. The effect occurs for any g, however. Even a tiny observer on a speck of dust could measure acceleration away, for a projectile receding at close to c.
That’s right, it’s not terribly strange, at least not for a student of relativity. What’s novel here is the application of that effect (via the principle of equivalence) to a projectile launched from the ground, as measured by a ground observer. Nobody has done that before, AFAIK. The effect as measured from the ground is certainly strange enough to get any major journal to slam the virtual door in the face of anyone who presents it.
I invite you to examine the solution to the dark energy problem I gave in post 102, to see that I didn’t use SR outside of its domain of applicability. SR is used only locally there. It’s possible to employ SR in a thought experiment involving significant curvature of spacetime (e.g. comparing Earth with distant planets or stars) without misusing it.
Keep in mind that SR has been experimentally confirmed to many significant digits in quite large frames, like a kilometer or more, and such application is supported by the principle of equivalence. That said, my solution to the dark energy problem (compliments of the physicist in my dream) requires using SR in only an arbitrarily small region. Even a micrometer-sized region would do.
Also note that the finding of acceleration away could be measured by a satellite in orbit, for a projectile launched alongside it and directly upward (away from the Earth) at a speed close to c, even though the satellite’s frame is inertial. That’s because this relativistic effect actually depends on gravitational potential and not acceleration (the kind felt as a push, like in the rocket) per se. I can give you an undeniable thought experiment for this if you want. This indirectly explains why satellites like the Hubble telescope can also measure high-redshift supernovae accelerating away (what you call the cosmological constant).
Last edited:
Re Bert:
Well, I decided for the sake of an exercise that I'd check the rocket site's calculations, and I ended up getting the same results, so I'm confident they make a valid starting point.
Regardless, I want to see more of your own derivation, because I don't see where you get the relation $$D=d\gamma_{proj}/\gamma$$. I don't think you can do it that way- if the rocket observer argues that two flashes went off at the same time a distance $$D$$ apart, those flashes occur at different times as seen on Earth. The measurements $$d$$ and $$D$$ are measurements on two different sets of events, I don't think you can just plug in gamma factors to determine instantaneous distances in one frame based on instantaneous distances in the other. That's certainly not how I did it. It's possible your result is wrong but the mistake is small enough that you don't notice it just by glancing at the graphs.
I'm pretty confident the apparent acceleration of the projectile is an effect that will be observed at any launch velocity, if you zoom in close enough on the early times. It would be easy to check with calculus, but I want to see you do it first, if you're claiming I'm wrong. Again, it's only an effect of changing spacetime definitions in a non-inertial frame, and it's not necessarily an effect the rocket observer would actually experience, because each set of position and time measurements would require them to stop accelerating, remain in an inertial frame, and wait for information about the projectile to reach them at lightspeed or less. All my calculations show is that if the rocket were to deploy beacons at certain intervals to determine the projectile's position and time at each moment of deployment, the beacons would return a set of measurements like the ones shown in my graphs, after waiting long enough to be able to make all these measurements.
Anyhow as I said before, it doesn't matter if SR works well on scales of ~1km or so, because to first order the g-field is the same over these kinds of distances. As soon as you start dealing with distances where the variation in g-forces noticeably affects your answer, you can't use SR anymore. If we're talking about dark energy, then you're talking about distances of billions of lightyears, and extrapolating SR to those kinds of ranges is bogus.
Well, I decided for the sake of an exercise that I'd check the rocket site's calculations, and I ended up getting the same results, so I'm confident they make a valid starting point.
Regardless, I want to see more of your own derivation, because I don't see where you get the relation $$D=d\gamma_{proj}/\gamma$$. I don't think you can do it that way- if the rocket observer argues that two flashes went off at the same time a distance $$D$$ apart, those flashes occur at different times as seen on Earth. The measurements $$d$$ and $$D$$ are measurements on two different sets of events, I don't think you can just plug in gamma factors to determine instantaneous distances in one frame based on instantaneous distances in the other. That's certainly not how I did it. It's possible your result is wrong but the mistake is small enough that you don't notice it just by glancing at the graphs.
I'm pretty confident the apparent acceleration of the projectile is an effect that will be observed at any launch velocity, if you zoom in close enough on the early times. It would be easy to check with calculus, but I want to see you do it first, if you're claiming I'm wrong. Again, it's only an effect of changing spacetime definitions in a non-inertial frame, and it's not necessarily an effect the rocket observer would actually experience, because each set of position and time measurements would require them to stop accelerating, remain in an inertial frame, and wait for information about the projectile to reach them at lightspeed or less. All my calculations show is that if the rocket were to deploy beacons at certain intervals to determine the projectile's position and time at each moment of deployment, the beacons would return a set of measurements like the ones shown in my graphs, after waiting long enough to be able to make all these measurements.
Anyhow as I said before, it doesn't matter if SR works well on scales of ~1km or so, because to first order the g-field is the same over these kinds of distances. As soon as you start dealing with distances where the variation in g-forces noticeably affects your answer, you can't use SR anymore. If we're talking about dark energy, then you're talking about distances of billions of lightyears, and extrapolating SR to those kinds of ranges is bogus.
BertBonsai
Registered Senior Member
Good to hear.
Well, as I said before, I’m not extrapolating SR to those kinds of ranges. I’m using SR only in an arbitrarily small region.
Tell you what: you agree to look at my solution to the dark energy problem and give me your comments, and I’ll give you that derivation. Quid pro quo! It takes me time to write it up, as the derivation existed only in my head as I wrote out the equations.
Sure, you can do that. The rocket site does that (See “Below the rocket, something strange is happening...”), and this link on length contraction does also. In fact, even GR does it; look at the Schwarzschild metric to see the same method used. The gamma factor in that metric is sqrt(1 - 2M/r). The metric multiplies elapsed time by this factor, and divides radial distance by this factor, to transform elapsed times and radial distances from a faraway observer’s measurements to a local observer’s measurements. The Schwarzschild metric is nothing more than the metric for flat spacetime (SR metric) with a gamma factor plugged into it.
Then I’m interested in knowing how you did it. Can you summarize?
I’ll make only a logical argument against it. The top part of your last graph above is a graph of a projectile launched at low velocity; by that point on the graph the projectile’s speed has decreased to a non-relativistic speed. You don’t see acceleration away there. For you to be right, the curve there would need to be wavy at a fine scale, not smooth. It’s obvious from looking at the equations that they are unable to produce a wavy curve at fine scale. There would need to be more terms in the equations to do that.
Also, if you think about what's going on, it can be visualized that as launch speed increases there is a single tipping point at which acceleration away first occurs. Acceleration away occurs only when the length-uncontraction of the projectile's frame (as the rocket's crew or ground observer measures) outbalances the deceleration of the projectile. Such outbalancing occurs only when relativistic effects are prominent; i.e. at speeds close to c.
I disagree. It’s an effect the rocket (or ground) observer would actually experience (measure). Always in relativity and elsewhere in science, a measurement and an observation are synonymous. There’s no other way to observe something!
The rocket (or ground) observer need not measure from an inertial frame. It’s perfectly fine for them to make measurements of elapsed times and distances from their accelerating frame. Almost all measurements in human history have taken place in an accelerating frame, and those measurements need not be inaccurate. This is the subject of the clock postulate, which has been “verified experimentally up to extraordinarily high accelerations”.
Which is equivalent to saying that the crew would measure that the projectile accelerates away initially, when it's launched at a speed close to c. It seems like you're trying to rationalize away a measurement, so it's more like an illusion that can be dismissed as unreal. Relativity rejects that idea.
Think about this: When you brake in your rocket, let a star that passes you suddenly take a 10 000 lightyear jump, and keep decelerating relative to it until it’s at rest with respect to you, after just one year elapsed on your clock. Then turn off your engine and float at rest with respect to the star. By all your measurements the star definitely moved at least 10000 light years away in that year on your clock, right? In that year, the star went from passing by you, to being a speck you might be able to discern only with a telescope. The star passed you at less than c (or else SR is invalid), and then moved at least 10000 light years in one year as you measured. There’s one & only one way that can happen: the star accelerated away from you, to move at an average rate of more than one light year per year away from you. Your measurements taken during your deceleration are no less valid than your measurements taken when you're floating at rest with respect to the star.
Just to let everyone know, I do have another rebuttal pending, and there are a lot of errors in Bert's reasoning from the last post that I want to tackle, but the past few days have been extremely busy for me, doing actual physics in the real world. Hopefully within a few days I should have a chance to reply, and I don't expect Bert to be convinced by it in any case, but I think there are many false claims that still need to be addressed here.
BertBonsai
Registered Senior Member
Bring it on when you can. And kudos to you for staying scientific so far. That's rare here from what I've seen.
Why are you willing to invest the time to post your claims on a forum when it'd take less effort to simply write it up into a pdf and then submit to a slew of journals? It doesn't cost you anything and the worst thing which can happen is you get rejected from all of them. Can't you at least try?
Your refusal to accept or even try to read my book references, explanations and use of algebraic methods doesn't mean they weren't 'scientific'. Your default excuse if everyone who disagrees with you is being unscientific but you've yet to provide a viable argument as to why you're someone who can evaluate the scientific merits and methodologies of people who work in an area you have no experience, knowledge or understanding of.
Besides, you can't simultaneously complain how others are being unscientific when you're refusing to follow the scientific method such as refusing to justify your claims when asked. I fully admit my posts in this thread and on this forum in general fall a long way short of what would be considered publishable quality but I'm not touting a pet theory here, you (and others) are. If you'd actually engage people into an honest informed discussion you'd find the discussion increases in scientific merit and interest.
You clearly want to be taken seriously as a scientist-like person but you're unwilling (and IMHO unable) to meet any of the standards expected. To use an example : creationists whine about not being allowed to teach creationism in science class and how they are being excluded from academic institutes if they want to 'research' creationism. They know people take them more seriously in science if they have degrees and doctorates so they're trying to get the rules changes so they can infer doctorates on people at whim (ie via Christian universities) but that will simply result in academia finding new qualifications which have high standards. Creationists think if they appear to be doing science they'll have a more valid argument, that elitism in the form of educational knowledge and qualifications is wrong (and yet elitism in sports or the military is lauded over). You're doing the same, you view the fact there's 'an exclusive club' which generally implies something good about its members (ie researchers have particular high level educations, knowledge and skills) but that you're being excluded as somehow unfair. As a result you aren't improving your work to provide more details, explanations, methods, justifications etc so as to lift it to the required standards of said 'exclusive club' but you're trying to get the bar lowered so you can get over it.
New submissions to ArXiv appear daily and a significant chunk of the relevant research communities browse the new submissions. How do I know this? I was in said community and know plenty of people who were and/or are. If you have an account (ie someone's vouched for you) then provided you submit by a certain time of day it'll appear the next morning (Monday to Friday). That's putting your work in front of the majority of the community almost instantly. For peer reviewing journals vary in their speed, I've had a paper reviewed in less than 2 weeks while another took 3 months.
Even 3 months is much much shorter than you'd need to contact all the relevant departments and people, you'd need to engage them in discussion because any obvious copy and pastes spammings will be ignored as its impolite.
And to reiterate my point from previous posts (since you still don't get it) is that you're obviously wanting people to read your work and unless you're being a massive hypocrite (which you are IMO but you claim otherwise) you'd wish to be scientific and allow for people to offer corrections and suggestions and yes, even the possibility you might be completely wrong. You've now seen that no one, on one, with any knowledge in the relevant areas agree with your claims. If you're not being unscientific then if you consider myself and others unable to give any viable critique then you should be looking for people who can, people you know will not have any gaps in their GR knowledge. And where can you find such people easily? Journals.
Please explain what you hope to get from your threads and claims. What criteria do you have such that you'll accept corrections from someone? What, hypothetically, would you require be presented for you to then say "Turns out I was wrong"? If you have absolutely no interest in hearing from people who have any experience with relevant physics then you're wasting everyone's time, as you're looking to swindle people who don't see through your lies due to lack of physics knowledge on their part. Presently you reject everyone (both on this forum and those attached for particular journals) who might or does disagree with you as being 'unscientific'. How scientific is it to summarily dismiss anyone who disagrees with you? After all, isn't this what you're claiming the mainstream does? When I say "Go over my head, find someone whose knowledge you can't deny" you make up excuses. It seems you have no interest in being scientific.
And you can complain and whine all you like here, with or without me replying, because we both know here is where you'll stay. All your insults of 'you're unscientific' won't change the fact those people you've said it to have contributed more to science then you ever will. Hell, I get paid to do it, researchers, scientists and business people all think I can contribute enough to be worth employing, my pay cheque disagrees with your insults
/edit
No doubt you're thinking "Oh no, another long post". Getting into the habit of providing too much discussion compared to too little is good when it comes to writing up your work for others to look at. Try it some time.
BertBonsai
Registered Senior Member
You could learn a lot from CptBork--just stick to the topic and stay scientific. Like I said, I've read the books and they disagree with you. You can't support your claims against my questioning, which is why you ignore that questioning and instead go on & on about irrelevant topics like journals and now ArXiv. A reply in 2 weeks or 3 months doesn't matter when journals anti-scientifically make certain topics off-limits. ArXiv doesn't matter when it's anti-scientifically off-limits to most of the population regardless of content (the sponsorship thing certainly doesn't make it "the fastest easiest way" now does it?).
All the whining here is yours. You may have fooled some sheeple here but I see all your illogic. I get paid to be logical. If you want to get beyond the student level, try picking one my questions / points you ignored above and respond to it scientifically, with no ad hom or irrelevant stuff. Be open to being wrong.
All the whining here is yours. You may have fooled some sheeple here but I see all your illogic. I get paid to be logical. If you want to get beyond the student level, try picking one my questions / points you ignored above and respond to it scientifically, with no ad hom or irrelevant stuff. Be open to being wrong.
Last edited:
I looked at your "solution" to the dark energy problem, and it requires SR to be applied to a non-uniform gravitational field over a distance of many billion light years. You can't do that, you'll get nonsensical results, this is what I've already been explaining. For example, show how your methodology differentiates between the cases of:
a) a uniform gravitational field throughout the universe
b) a non-uniform inverse-square law field centered on the Earth
No, go look up the Schwarzschild metric, it's not just some multiple of the Minkowski (flat space) metric. If you do the proper GR calculation, for the case of the Schwarzschild metric, an Earthbound observer will see distant objects being accelerated towards the Earth and either returning, or else asymptoting down to some fixed velocity. Plus nowhere are you accounting for the fact that two clocks ticking simultaneously in one reference frame need no be doing so in another.
I started by working out the following: If two flashes occur simultaneously in the rocket frame, a distance $$D$$ apart, what is the distance $$d$$ in the original rest/launch frame? Then, knowing that the flashes occur at different times in the rest frame, I calculate what the time difference would be in order for the flashes to appear simultaneous in the rocket frame, calculate the resulting distance while taking this time difference into account, then I switch back to the rocket frame to get my final result. Now your turn, show me how you derived your result, because I think it's mistaken.
Sorry, but that's a very non-rigorous and effortless attempt you give here. For a guy who complains so much about not getting fair access to peer review, this was a chance for you to show some initiative. I did some calculations, and I'll need to double check them at some point, but it appears that if the equations I've used so far are correct, the effect would be noticeable for launch velocities equal to or greater than $$c/2$$. And besides, all projectiles eventually fall back to Earth in this model, I have yet to see how you transfer it to a non-uniform gravity field where SR no longer applies.
No, my calculations indicate that the effect is immediate, and occurs for any projectile launched at half the speed of light or more.
You forget that only events inside an observer's future and past lightcones are of any physical relevance to them. The rocket observer does not see the projectile's instantaneous position, they see the light emitted from it at some point in the past when it was closer to Earth.
You forget that in SR, the accelerating observer can always be taken to be inertial at that very instant, as if they turned their rockets off for an infinitesimal moment in time. That's how you treat accelerations in SR when doing actual calculations in the real world, as opposed to calculations in the dream world where you can make up whatever the heck you want.
Stay scientific like providing book references and not assuming the SR simplification you do, you mean? Cpt Bork has disagreed with you too, commenting about how you've made too many assumptions, many due to the difference in SR compared to GR.
You haven't read the books, else you'd not be as naive as you are.
The fact you don't want to listen and think you're infallible, despite having done absolutely no reading and/or learning on the relevant things doesn't magically make you right.
Keep telling yourself that if it helps you live in your soft fuzzy world of self delusion.
Paid to do what? Its obviously not theoretical physics, which I have been paid to do, teach and publish. It's not mathematics which I am paid to do and apply to real world problems.
Been there, done that. I have my doctoral ceremony next month. I've got proof I've gone beyond the student level. Your naivety as to the level of other people's knowledge and the absence of your own doesn't elevate you.
I'm more than happy to admit when I'm wrong but you've yet to provide any reasonable argument for your claims. And anyone who knows any relativity whose replied to you has disagreed with you. Even if I spend time explaining your mistakes and giving you a detailed reason you don't listen, you've already made that clear, so why should I bother again? You demand people reply to you bt refuse to listen when they do, then demand they reply again. If you're incapable of entering into an intellectually honest informed discussion then don't be surprised when people think you're not worth the effort. You couldn't even understand my simply explanation of how you can't assume SR validity while independently picking an M, R and g. Not only that but you then lied to me about it via your 'paraphrasing', about something I had said to you. When you're silly enough to paraphrase me utterly incorrectly to my face then you make it clear you lack the intellectual honesty to enter into a rational discussion. You dismiss my views as 'student level' but you're unwilling to put your work in front of anyone whose above me in the academic levels. You make up excuses but its clear that you know your claims won't fly with anyone else and you know you can't ignore the knowledge of professors, you can't call them 'student level'.
How have you moved on since posting this thread? You haven't. You're going nowhere and at the end of the day that's all you'll ever do. Feel free to prove me wrong.