The Speed of Light is Not Constant

[Aqueous Id]

Ok.
What you don't understand here is that being in a room, knowing which way is up, being able to turn left or right, walk backwards, or in short, knowing how to 'define' directions means you have a system of coordinates; that's you, the room, and the clocks in it. And of course you have an innate sense of 'distance', you can tell you aren't at the same place as either of the clocks, the clocks are in different places or 'positions'.
Looks a hell of a lot like a way to define both distance and direction--gravity helps here, because you know which way is down, you can 'feel' it. Looks way like a coordinate system; hell, you could probably whip out a ruler and start laying off unit distances all over the place . . .

Adding to what you said: Before the experiment begins the clocks must be calibrated. Clock A and Clock B must first be placed in the same reference frame, at equal altitude, while the calibration is done. Then, when Clock B is lifted a meter or two higher, it traverses the gravitational gradient; and in so doing its reference frame diverges from the initial frame. It settles at the new altitude in this new frame, ticking sightly faster than before, and exactly as predicted.

And this is why Farsight can never work at NIST, at least not until they come up with an SI unit for denial and end up needing a human standard to calibrate against.

 

[Grumpy]

RC

You, too. Address my illustration.

My whole point was to observe that the clocks varied in time rates. That direct observation implied that the light between the mirrors moved across energy-space differently compared to each others location in GR context. Period.

The whole point is that a photon takes longer to travel a bent path through spacetime at c than it would to go straight between the same two points(coordinate distance), and that gravity bends spacetime in proportion to the strength of the gravity field. The two clocks see different gravity field strength, the spacetime bends more in the lower clock, so it registers slower clicks.

Energy-space is an oxymoron, stop using it, it makes you look ignorant.

Whatever 'interpretation' is to be put upon the REASON why that differing light motion/rate is what the discussion between Farsight and you et al is all about.

The light moves at c. It is only the coordinate speed that changes, not the speed of the light c. Just like every one of the non-cranks have been saying. Farsight has been wrong from the start, he rejects both postulates of Relativity.

Your contention is 'spacetime path contraction' or some such abstract 'spacetime' construct-based 'interpretation of the REAL DIRECT OBSERVABLE FACT that the clocks DO indicate the light IS moving differently compared to the other clock.

No, light always travel exactly at c in all frames, between all frames and from all frames. Period. It is the coordinate speed that changes because light takes the bent path of spacetime not the straight path between those same coordinates, the bent path is longer the further into a gravity field you go. But light travels at c all the way down. Spacetime is a real thing in the Universe, it actually affects reality. The theory of Relativity is not an interpretation, it is a description of the real behavior of the Universe itself and the interaction of it's properties. Constant lightspeed is so well established that no one has yet made a portable instrument to measure it, it would only indicate one speed(no matter how accurate you make it)in all circumstances(IE it would be useless).

Farsight says that it is light speed that slowed.

Yes, and that means Farsight doesn't know a damn thing about physics or Relativity(not to mention the history of the investigation of light).

So your discussion is at the stage of you and he trying to support your respective 'interpretation' of the observed light behavior variation.

When your "interpretation" requires the violation of a well established physical fact(c), your interpretation immediately and completely fails(at least as a description of reality). Our description of the Universe is valid, it explains the time dilation without violating that well established physical property. In fact, the whole of Relativity came into being to explain that well established fact(c). Constant lightspeed is the basis for Relativity. Relativity explains that fact.

In the real GR case before you of the two clocks in the room you are standing in, there are no '[measured' sped of light.

The clock is based on the coordinate speed of light between two mirrors, it is the operating principle of the clock. That is what the clock measures. It is the differences in the coordinate speed between those two mirrors that causes the slower clock. So,the only thing we are talking about is that coordinate speed between the mirrorsand the actual speed of light.

Farsight says that they are the same, that light slows down. Well, in physics in general and in Relativity we have known that light only travels at c for almost two hundred years, with not one instance in all that time where that has been shown NOT to be true. Farsight is therefore wrong, the actual speed of light does not slow down, he's missing something in his understanding. Einstein says light travels the zero energy geodesic through spacetime, if spacetime is bent, so is a photons path. Gravity bends spacetime and light follows that bent path, which is longer than the straight coordinate path, thus the clock slows down under acceleration because the spacetime it is in gets bent more. The coordinate speed of light gets slower even though the actual speed of light through spacetime does not change, it remains c.

Bent spacetime due to gravity doesn't just affect clocks, we use it as a lens to see distant galaxies. Interestingly, this setup above also illustrates the difference between coordinate speed and lightspeed through bent spacetime. The starlight passing straight through the galaxy cluster will arrive very close to the coordinate speed between Earth and the most distant blue galaxy, while the bent spacetime paths on either side of the center galaxy cluster will be time delayed due to their light having traveled a longer path through bent space, even though the light itself traveled all three paths at exactly c. The time differences will give you a very accurate measurement of the mass in the galaxy cluster doing the lensing. The time delays between the center one and the outer ones will then give you a very accurate distance to the further galaxy, using calculus that Newton could do. In Cosmology our clocks are huge. Earth replaces the detector and the distant blue galaxy replaces the emitter, the galaxy cluster is the acceleration and the difference between the times is caused by the same effect as happens in our clock.

You can even see the bent spacetime, curved by the gravity field and illuminated by the lensed light passing through it that focuses on Earth.

Notice all those bent arcs? Illuminated bent spacetime.

Grumpy

 

[Grumpy]

-crickets-

Hello?

-more crickets-

What's the matter, starting to see how wrong you have been?

-crickets-

 

[river]

This puzzles me

In the Orion belt there is this star Betelgeuse, which is suppose to go supernova at any time , and which is only 640 light years from Earth

And neutrinos are the telling sign that this star is going supernova , before the actual event , in Japan , their neutrino detector is doing just that

My question is , this star is 640 light years away , which hasn't happened yet , by observation , then how does , at the moment of supernova , does it become visable ?

There isn't a 640 year time line , it is , instantaneous observation

And apparently there is a colour change to the various changes in the stages of this stars movement towards the supernova condition

That would imply a , 640 , light year , time line , for each change of colour , or stage of the star , physical dynamics

Which would mean then , that the observation of this star and the stages that it goes through is not possible if light speed is constant

river

 

[Grumpy]

river

Neutrinos travel at lightspeed and they will arrive from a supernova at exactly the same time as the beginning of the explosion is seen. They may be a few seconds before we see the brightening of the explosion, but that's all. And that is because the collapse and explosion are inside a very big red star and it takes a little time before the explosion reaches the surface. Mysterious scientific wizards in Japan cannot see it any sooner than that.

Grumpy

 

[Grumpy]

Farsight RC and Maxilla

Either address my explanation and demonstration of curved spacetime in my clock or you have admitted you cannot. Your woo is busted, dudes. I do know what I am talking about and you all don't.

Grumpy:thankyou:

 

[river]

river

Neutrinos travel at lightspeed and they will arrive from a supernova at exactly the same time as the beginning of the explosion is seen. They may be a few seconds before we see the brightening of the explosion, but that's all. And that is because the collapse and explosion are inside a very big red star and it takes a little time before the explosion reaches the surface. Mysterious scientific wizards in Japan cannot see it any sooner than that.

Grumpy

To them they have a few hours warning , when the neutrinos , hit their detector , an indicator of the supernova to come

 

[Trippy]

river

Neutrinos travel at lightspeed and they will arrive from a supernova at exactly the same time as the beginning of the explosion is seen. They may be a few seconds before we see the brightening of the explosion, but that's all. And that is because the collapse and explosion are inside a very big red star and it takes a little time before the explosion reaches the surface. Mysterious scientific wizards in Japan cannot see it any sooner than that.

Grumpy

My recollection is that the neutrinos are produced by the collapse of the iron core of a star when it reaches a certain size. Once iron starts being produced I think it lasts a matter of days.

The neutrinos prpvide energy to the shockwave which travels outwards, but the timescale for that is hours - for example, there was a two to three hour lag time between the detection of neutrinos from, and the observation of sn1987a. In theory at least that should, given the number of neutrino observatories we have, be heaps of time to have an array of telescopes pointing in the right direction to watch things unfold.

 

[river]

My recollection is that the neutrinos are produced by the collapse of the iron core of a star when it reaches a certain size. Once iron starts being produced I think it lasts a matter of days.

The neutrinos provide energy to the shockwave which travels outwards, but the timescale for that is hours - for example, there was a two to three hour lag time between the detection of neutrinos from, and the observation of sn1987a. In theory at least that should, given the number of neutrino observatories we have, be heaps of time to have an array of telescopes pointing in the right direction to watch things unfold.

Yes but why is this possible in the first place ?

Why should we be able to see this supernova now , although this star is 640 light years away ?

 

[Grumpy]

Trippy

My recollection is that the neutrinos are produced by the collapse of the iron core of a star when it reaches a certain size. Once iron starts being produced I think it lasts a matter of days.

I don't claim expertise in the details of the process, but, it depends on the size of the star(and any star that can make iron is already pretty large). The higher the mass above the line of iron production, the shorter the time it has before collapse of the core, it could be as little as seconds in heavy, dense blue supergiants. A star can survive iron in plasma form in it's atmosphere, but once it starts fusing iron in the core it is a bomb with the fuse lit. It is the collapse of the iron core that starts the supernova and releases the neutrinos, it only depends on how deep the atmosphere is after that before you see initial brightening.

The neutrinos prpvide energy to the shockwave which travels outwards, but the timescale for that is hours - for example, there was a two to three hour lag time between the detection of neutrinos from, and the observation of sn1987a. In theory at least that should, given the number of neutrino observatories we have, be heaps of time to have an array of telescopes pointing in the right direction to watch things unfold.

Sounds right. It's certainly not 600 some years.

Grumpy

 

[Undefined]

An indication is not something that is an "OBSERVABLE FACT". Only in the context of a theory that we can compare to our observations can we begin to make claims about whether or not we can draw this inference.

Farsight never makes claims that can be compared to observations.

Therefore he cannot be properly making a claim about what inferences we can draw from the world as we observe it.

What? Observing the difference in the tick counts is not an observable? Observing that difference doesn't tell you anything when compared? Isn't that 'telling' by direct comparison any indication at all that the difference exists? What sort of observer do you think it is that denies the reality under heir noses as demonstrated directly by the two clock comparison counts. Are you trying sophist copouts to get out of admitting the bleeding obvious, by any chance?

Double standard 'arguments' again from mainstreamers? How do you think mainstreamers check the indication that something HAS changed in the Twin scenario when they are compared as to respective 'cumulative aging'? It tells them that something HAS changed. And now mainstreamers have been forced to recognize (and include in otherwise purely-reciprocal-SE-math-view) the NON-inertial effects on clock/biology timing/aging PROCESSES inherent to the twins/clocks traveling AND accelerating or not.

So your attempted sophist evasion/strawman is proven a non-starter even by the mainstream INDICATION of some change and why in the mainstream twin gedanken scenario. OK?

Like I already pointed out, there is NO 'abstract theory' observational construct necessary in that specific scenario. The clocks are left alone to count away. Then you come back and compare. They tell the story of difference DIRECTLY without any further ado or manipulation/interpretation from your preferred abstractions after the events/results are IN and directly observed AT direct comparison.

I don't care what 'claims' are made as to WHY the difference exists. I only observe that the fact of a difference implies something has changed. Period.

Now we know from GR-effects prediction/fact that the 'timing' rate and count cumulative will change according to GR location. We also know that either some abstract 'spacetime' length contraction is complementing the timing values for the calculation of 'invariant c', or else the real energy-space process/propagation rate of the light has changed.

I will observe the further discussion between you and Farsight regarding which of you has the more realistic empirically DIRECTLY referential (not mere abstract math interpretations) explanation for the resultant 'invariant c' proportionate value obtained which is invariant across all frames if the complementary factors change accordingly in every frame to make it so.

Good luck, guys.


PS: Funny, the 'Dark Matter' observation is trumpeted by mainstreamers as OBSERVABLE INDICATIONS that something is 'there' and affecting/producing the observed gravitational phenomena. But NOW all of a sudden you want to DISCOUNT that mainstream claim that there is an observable that INDICATES something IS 'different' from expected observations of gravitational phenomena under GR as was before Dark Matter is 'seen' via indicative observation and inference therefrom? Wanting it both ways seems an occupational 'preference' with many so-called mainstreamers here and elsewhere. I wonder why?

 

[Trippy]

Yes but why is this possible in the first place ?

Why should we be able to see this supernova now , although this star is 640 light years away ?

Because 'now' is relative. Because the light takes 640 years to reach us and the light we see from it now was emitted by it in 1374.

 

[Grumpy]

river

Why should we be able to see this supernova now , although this star is 640 light years away ?

Betelgeuse has not gone supernova, no one is seeing that.



RC

I will observe the further discussion between you and Farsight

Don't forget to pull the ripcord and watch you don't collide with Maxilla on the way down, he already bailed. I'm sure Farsight will join you shortly.

Happy landings.:thumbsup:

Grumpy

 

[Undefined]

There you are! Welcome back! Don't hide from your crackpottery, own it - be proud of who you are! Because even if you can hide it from yourself, you can't hide it from us.

So: "location". Apparently you now agree that the two clocks are in different coordinate locations and the calculated speed of light difference is a coordinate difference that doesn't impact each clock's local/invariant/measured speed of light, right?

Anticipating you will now try to evade your own argument again, let's drop back a step: You agree that the equation I posted in #373 (first posted by Farsight) describes this situation, right? In other words, you know you can use that equation to calculate the results of the experiment before you run it, right?


Actually, if you beat it out of him, he'll admit that it is coordinate speed. He evades his own arguments too.

Btw, I'll start keeping your tab in the bottom of my posts. It is now $30 (per active poster).

That was never at issue. Keep up!

The clocks are right in front of you, one above the other. It doesn't need your 'frames' overlay to see that and let the clocks do their thing and compare afterwards the cumulative counts irrespective of which 'GR frames' they were in in any one experimental 'run'. Get that yet?

Your insistence on theoretical unreal abstract theory/math IRRELEVANTS in the scenario 'abstract frames' considerations are made MOOT by the scenario DIRECTLY observable/consultable essentials/objective results IRRESPECTIVE of anyone's 'theory interpretations' thereafter.

Do better, Russ. Your irrelevant abstraction overlay theme is getting stale in trying to avoid the bleeding obvious objective facts directly accessible under your very nose in that specific exercise.


PS: See also my post #391 to PhysBang above. It will explain even more explicitly in mainstream-wise terms what your problem is. Not needed here. Thanks.

 

[Trippy]

Trippy



I don't claim expertise in the details of the process, but, it depends on the size of the star(and any star that can make iron is already pretty large). The higher the mass above the line of iron production, the shorter the time it has before collapse of the core, it could be as little as seconds in heavy, dense blue supergiants. A star can survive iron in plasma form in it's atmosphere, but once it starts fusing iron in the core it is a bomb with the fuse lit. It is the collapse of the iron core that starts the supernova and releases the neutrinos, it only depends on how deep the atmosphere is after that before you see initial brightening.

Silicon burning begins when the core temp reaches 2.7 to 3.5 GK, and requires a minimum mass of 8-11 solar masses. River was talking about neutrinos and betelgeuse, so I assumed he was talking abouy type II supernovae. Core collapse occurs when the mass of the iron core exceeds the chandrasekhar limit of about 1.4 solar masses. This generally takes days (5 days for a 25 solar mass star, 18 days for a 15 solar mass star) once the burning of the silicon core begins.

Sounds right. It's certainly not 600 some years.

Grumpy

Quite. What I can't work out is if he's trolling or confused.

 

[Undefined]

Ok.
What you don't understand here is that being in a room, knowing which way is up, being able to turn left or right, walk backwards, or in short, knowing how to 'define' directions means you have a system of coordinates; that's you, the room, and the clocks in it. And of course you have an innate sense of 'distance', you can tell you aren't at the same place as either of the clocks, the clocks are in different places or 'positions'.
Looks a hell of a lot like a way to define both distance and direction--gravity helps here, because you know which way is down, you can 'feel' it. Looks way like a coordinate system; hell, you could probably whip out a ruler and start laying off unit distances all over the place . . .

Adding to what you said: Before the experiment begins the clocks must be calibrated. Clock A and Clock B must first be placed in the same reference frame, at equal altitude, while the calibration is done. Then, when Clock B is lifted a meter or two higher, it traverses the gravitational gradient; and in so doing its reference frame diverges from the initial frame. It settles at the new altitude in this new frame, ticking sightly faster than before, and exactly as predicted.

And this is why Farsight can never work at NIST, at least not until they come up with an SI unit for denial and end up needing a human standard to calibrate against.

Aqueous, you were answered on this point already in the "Gravity Works Like This" thread (see post #222 therein).

And arfa brane was already answered on this self-same point here in this thread (see post #366).

So please either respond with science supporting your continuing impressions of what you think is relevant but has been explained is not in this specific scenario, or quit making empty posts more designed to continue already answered points rather than add anything valid to the discussion. Thanks.

 

[Undefined]

-crickets-

Hello?

-more crickets-

What's the matter, starting to see how wrong you have been?

-crickets-

I went back to bed because of my cold, Grumpy. Back this morning, as you can see. No 'crickets' here, mate!

 

[Undefined]

Good morning, Grumpy.

The whole point is that a photon takes longer to travel a bent path through spacetime at c than it would to go straight between the same two points(coordinate distance), and that gravity bends spacetime in proportion to the strength of the gravity field. The two clocks see different gravity field strength, the spacetime bends more in the lower clock, so it registers slower clicks.

You presume from theory a 'bent spacetime path' but that is just an 'observed' phenomena as to its motion across energy-space. Period.

What you 'interpret' that energy-space motional trajectory is your problem in reality. The theory of abstract spacetime is BY DESIGN or PURPOSE NOT really explaining/identifying the physical entities or mechanisms that 'couple 'space' to 'mass/light. Like I pointed out elsewhere:

Very glib, Grumpy, but unfortunately mainstream physics has not yet identified 'coupling mechanism' with spacetime that allows mass of a planet to 'curve' its surrounding spacetime.

Nor has it yet explained how universally 'flat' geodesics are 'curved' and how 'spacetime' couples to infalling masses to redirect that mass from otherwise 'flat' spacetime geodesic path.

Let alone yet explained how 'expanding spacetime' couples to galaxies mass to 'grab' them and 'take/push' them ALONG with 'expanding spacetime' at whatever 'expansion speed'. Until mainstream physics DOES identify & explain 'spacetime-to-mass' COUPLING mechanism and 'necessary forces' to make masses 'move along with it' (hypothesized inflation/expansion) or 'change course within it' (gravitationally affected geodesics), then it's all mainstream hypothesis/conjecture, not 'explanation' of anything.

Perhaps until that has happened, all those 'glib' non-explanatory 'comic book version' fairy tales should have a 'disclaimer' like that above attached whenever anyone is tempted to just post these 'chestnut' ad hoc copouts-in-lieu-of-real-explanations without any understanding of the reality implications/limitations of same?

So no need to say anymore about the glib but your above unreal overlays/assumptions/interpretations from math 'theory' abstraction/construct about WHY/HOW the light follows that curved trajectory, hey? Because that is the essence of your further discussion with Farsight as to which 'interpretation' is more real and empirically (not abstractly) referential to the actual entities/mechanisms and not just 'glib comic book version' overlay non-explanations.

Energy-space is an oxymoron, stop using it, it makes you look ignorant.

It's better than 'space-time' that is a math only abstraction which uses 'time' without recognizing the motional reality 'processing' in/of energy-space itself and its features/dynamics locally which are real and observable and from which we derive abstract 'time'.

Just because you prefer the abstract 'spacetime' construct does not mean you can dictate anything to those wishing to recognize and use the real observable entities/dynamics of the real underlying consituent of the universe, energy and space.

Before you go any further with your 'dictates to others', maybe you should also go tell the QM physicist that their Quantum Vaccum is just a figment of their imagination and that they shouldn't refer to anything like real as a 'background' rather than just some 'spacetime' invention by mathematical modelers, hey?

Get real, mate, and stop with the dictates to others from your own abstract preferences in lieu of the reality around you.

The light moves at c. It is only the coordinate speed that changes, not the speed of the light c. Just like every one of the non-cranks have been saying. Farsight has been wrong from the start, he rejects both postulates of Relativity.

That is an apriori assumption/interpretation from your abstract theory, Grumpy.

This discussion is FIRST settling that there IS a real LOCAL GR (not co-ordinate frame abstract view) difference in light's rate between the mirrors as the clocking process.

THEN you and Farsight may continue with your discussion on that agreed basis and compare which of your respective explanations------ie, EITHER abstract 'spacetime path bending/contracting' OR real light speed variance)-----is empirically (not merely mathematically/abstractly) supportable in the context that the only real things are energy, space and MOTION/CHANGE in PROCESSES in/of that real energy-space context.

Go to it, guys!

No, light always travel exactly at c in all frames, between all frames and from all frames. Period. It is the coordinate speed that changes because light takes the bent path of spacetime not the straight path between those same coordinates, the bent path is longer the further into a gravity field you go. But light travels at c all the way down. Spacetime is a real thing in the Universe, it actually affects reality. The theory of Relativity is not an interpretation, it is a description of the real behavior of the Universe itself and the interaction of it's properties. Constant lightspeed is so well established that no one has yet made a portable instrument to measure it, it would only indicate one speed(no matter how accurate you make it)in all circumstances(IE it would be useless).

If you don't read and understand properly the difference/origins of those 'absolute c' and 'invariant c' etc terms/values/usages, then you will continue confused conflating and get more "headaches" trying to understand the incomprehensible math-turbation abstract overlays and 'interpretations' comic book version of Relativity. Your choice, Grumpy. It's your head that "aches", not mine.

When your "interpretation" requires the violation of a well established physical fact(c), your interpretation immediately and completely fails(at least as a description of reality). Our description of the Universe is valid, it explains the time dilation without violating that well established physical property. In fact, the whole of Relativity came into being to explain that well established fact(c). Constant lightspeed is the basis for Relativity. Relativity explains that fact.

No no! It's the INTERPRETATIONS from abstract mathematical construct/theory that is being challenged by reality observable/explicable physical entities/arguments. That is what these discussions are about, after all. You're assuming the conclusion before you actually supply the reality-based explanations/mechanisms/entities puts the onus back on YOU to actually respond to the reality-based empirically arguable challenges as have been put so far by Farsight. The interpretation even by him may not be tenable completely when even more reality view is employed (as by my complete reality-consistent ToE), but he is much closer to complete real things than your abstractions/impressions and philosophical time/duration overlays/confusions are. Just insisting and treating your abstract interpretations as factual real entities/explanations is rather pre-conceptually premature in the discussion so far.

The clock is based on the coordinate speed of light between two mirrors, it is the operating principle of the clock. That is what the clock measures. It is the differences in the coordinate speed between those two mirrors that causes the slower clock. So,the only thing we are talking about is that coordinate speed between the mirrorsand the actual speed of light.

Again, co-ordinate frames etc are made moot in the directly observable clocks/light behavior. The interpretations from abstract theory may involve co-ordinate frames in order to invoke some 'spacetime' contraction/bending etc instead of acknowledging light speed variation, but that abstract overlay doesn't 'explain' anything but that assumption already inbuilt in your unreal abstract 'spacetime' overlays, does it?

Farsight says that they are the same, that light slows down. Well, in physics in general and in Relativity we have known that light only travels at c for almost two hundred years, with not one instance in all that time where that has been shown NOT to be true. Farsight is therefore wrong, the actual speed of light does not slow down, he's missing something in his understanding. Einstein says light travels the zero energy geodesic through spacetime, if spacetime is bent, so is a photons path. Gravity bends spacetime and light follows that bent path, which is longer than the straight coordinate path, thus the clock slows down under acceleration because the spacetime it is in gets bent more. The coordinate speed of light gets slower even though the actual speed of light through spacetime does not change, it remains c.

I know what he 'says'. I take all your respective PARTIAL THEORY based 'interpretations' with a grain of salt....and keep my own counsel from what my ToE tells me is actually going on for real, irrespective of extant partial theory assumptions/views. That's as far as I can comment on that (for reasons already stated earlier having to do with soon publishing ToE).

Bent spacetime due to gravity doesn't just affect clocks, we use it as a lens to see distant galaxies. Interestingly, this setup above also illustrates the difference between coordinate speed and lightspeed through bent spacetime. The starlight passing straight through the galaxy cluster will arrive very close to the coordinate speed between Earth and the most distant blue galaxy, while the bent spacetime paths on either side of the center galaxy cluster will be time delayed due to their light having traveled a longer path through bent space, even though the light itself traveled all three paths at exactly c. The time differences will give you a very accurate measurement of the mass in the galaxy cluster doing the lensing. The time delays between the center one and the outer ones will then give you a very accurate distance to the further galaxy, using calculus that Newton could do. In Cosmology our clocks are huge. Earth replaces the detector and the distant blue galaxy replaces the emitter, the galaxy cluster is the acceleration and the difference between the times is caused by the same effect as happens in our clock.

You can even see the bent spacetime, curved by the gravity field and illuminated by the lensed light passing through it that focuses on Earth.

Notice all those bent arcs? Illuminated bent spacetime.

No further comment is necessary about the above either except the following CRUCIAL reality check caution:

Very glib, Grumpy, but unfortunately mainstream physics has not yet identified 'coupling mechanism' with spacetime that allows mass of a planet to 'curve' its surrounding spacetime.

Nor has it yet explained how universally 'flat' geodesics are 'curved' and how 'spacetime' couples to infalling masses to redirect that mass from otherwise 'flat' spacetime geodesic path.

Let alone yet explained how 'expanding spacetime' couples to galaxies mass to 'grab' them and 'take/push' them ALONG with 'expanding spacetime' at whatever 'expansion speed'. Until mainstream physics DOES identify & explain 'spacetime-to-mass' COUPLING mechanism and 'necessary forces' to make masses 'move along with it' (hypothesized inflation/expansion) or 'change course within it' (gravitationally affected geodesics), then it's all mainstream hypothesis/conjecture, not 'explanation' of anything.

Perhaps until that has happened, all those 'glib' non-explanatory 'comic book version' fairy tales should have a 'disclaimer' like that above attached whenever anyone is tempted to just post these 'chestnut' ad hoc copouts-in-lieu-of-real-explanations without any understanding of the reality implications/limitations of same?

Cheers!

 

[Grumpy]

Trippy

I was thinking of the 100 plus mass stars as being very short fused. And when I said "fusing iron" I meant fusing up to iron. I think Eta Carinae is about 75 sols, that ones is going to blow, bigtime, one day in the not too distant future.

Grumpy

 

[Undefined]

Farsight RC and Maxilla

Either address my explanation and demonstration of curved spacetime in my clock or you have admitted you cannot. Your woo is busted, dudes. I do know what I am talking about and you all don't.

Grumpy:thankyou:

Answered. Please see above posts. Thanks