At Rest with our Hubble view

No, Tach. Rash and premature claims and opinions, as ever, hey? The further development of my discussion with Grumpy in this thread will depend on the outcome and mutual understandings we reach in the other thread.

Why persist in trying to claim falsely and 'verbal' and pre-empt things just because you have already made 'pre-conclusions' based only on what you 'know' but do not yet understand because you're missing the context and subtleties which an actual polite and proper discussion should eventually reveal if allowed to go to its natural conclusion based on the discussion points themselves, and not on your 'dictation' of what will and will not eventuate. Is that why you can't let people discuss in peace? Because you don't want to know what will come of a proper discussion on the issues and points only, and not your politics and malice aforethought loaded dictates?

Stick to the math threads/discussions, and leave these things alone, Tach. Else you will only make a proper fool of yourself once more, and the admin/mods will have to give you a 'time out' in the naughty corner again, like they did before more than once because of these silly trolls and baits of yours. You are not inerrant keeper of orthodoxy, Tach; only a self-appointed nuisance who has a talent for maths....and nothing else, especially English language communications and physical scenario understandings IN CONTEX. Leave such things to the adults, since you are not quite there with those things yet, ok? Thanks and good luck.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, Undefined. Grumpy called your bluff and your crackpottery in no uncertain terms. Keep posting in the Fringe section, this is where your posts belong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Grumpy re-iterated assertions from orthodox assumptions, hypotheses and interpretations. The discussion here and in the other thread is designed to TEST those assumptions, hypotheses and interpretations given the additional points I presented for Grumpy's further consideration as the discussions develop.

Until the discussions are concluded, your premature claims and assertions based on Tach's-dictates-before-discussion' tactics are neither here nor there, and hence are eminently ignorable. You have no clue about how fair and polite discussion is conducted. Only a juvenile and insecure mindset would seek to pre-empt the conclusions just because your ego 'demands it'. Thanks but no thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This rough idea is rubbish. The lower clock runs slower than the upper clock. Gravitational length contraction is radial. And it's the Shapiro delay, which if you adhere to a constant c, would have you think that lengths had increased nearer the star.

 

You mean from MAINSTREAM. While your posts are from FRINGE "assumptions, hypotheses and interpretations". No question about this, you have been doing this for years.

You can't test Grumpy's mainstream ideas with your crackpot misconceptions. The mainstream ideas have already been tested , by experiment. This is how things work in physics, theories are tested by experiment, not by crackpots' debating their "validity". Your continuing droning about "testing" mainstream science is just that, droning.

 

...which is exactly what GR teaches you, Duffield.

 

My point exactly, Tach (I presume you're looking in). Aqueous's diagram would have you think the exact opposite.

 

Farsight

No, length as a dimension does not increase, but all BENT paths are longer than a "straight" path between the same two points. The photons would cover exactly the same distance in the same time, but the one following a bent path would still have a further distance to go at the point in time that the photon on a "straight" path reached point b. This is Shapiro delay, it is the delay between a non-existent, hypothetical straight line transit time between two points(based on classic geometry) and the reality of there being no straight paths in spacetime when there is mass in it. Mass bends spacetime, bent paths are longer, thus a delay between the expected transit time(based on Euclid)and the actual transit time through spacetime. Something we should consider is that the photons whose paths are bent would never have reached point b without that bending. In other words they were going somewhere else but were bent into new trajectories, they have traveled a longer path than the hypothetical because they weren't originally on the same path as a "straight line photon" would have followed, they were a "straight line photon" to an entirely different point in Euclidean space. C is constant, transit times between Euclidean and Einsteinean geometries vary with the amount and configuration of intervening mass(and subsequent spacetime bending).

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Grumpy, we've dealt with that one with the Shapiro delay between the two stars. The light path isn't bent. It's as straight as a die. And there is no motion through spacetime. It's a static mathematical model. You draw worldliness in it to represent motion through space over time. But nothing moves in it because it presents all times at once.