Gravity Works Like This

Farsight hasn't changed his mind and he's the one claiming that "the coordinate speed of light is the speed of light," not me. I don't think you are following your own favored position. Also, I think you may have forgotten that you accosted me, not the other way around.

So do you have a reference to him using that term?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No problem. The two clocks are initially placed in an INTERMEDIATE altitude between the CENTIMETERS separating the final upper/lower positions before moved (one up slightly, other down slightly) so that such potential variables are miniscule. But in any case they have their respective COUNTERS RE-set when in position. Then after a year the two clocks counts are noted and THEIR POSITIONS REVERSED such that any original asynchrony, however INSIGNIFICANT it may be, will then cancel out of the counts overall after the reset again and final comparison after a year again.

The main take-away is the actual comparative differences exist in the counts at the end, irrespective of what actual final counts amounted to respectively.

Your objections are from 'theory'. My scenario/solution uses reality. That makes your declarative objections and assertions based on non-existent alleged errors by me or anyone else MOOT from the get-go. Thanks for your interest anyway, Aqueous Id.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS: Less of the bombastic polemics and personally prejudiced and motivated accusations and insults, Aq Id; and more actual science and due diligence in your otherwise obvious/obnoxious trolls. OK? Thanks for your future co-operation on that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

RC

Not only no, but hell no. I'm not wasting my time going back over the reams of woo you guys have been generating.

Explain where the hell you got that stupid "energy-space" non-sense. There is no such concept in Relativity and you avoid explaining your meaning time after time. Each clock is in spacetime. Energy is something spacetime has in it. Movement is something that occurs in it. We don't describe a glass as a wet liquid do we?

No, frames are simply a way of looking at things. In Relativity they are essential because things look differently depending on your FRAME OF REFERENCE, you cannot discard frames of reference and still make sense about the way the Universe works. It's all Relative to your reference frame. You cannot force us to accept such non-sense by superciliousness.

As I have pointed out numerous times lately, just because they are inventions does not mean they do not accurately model the reality. In the case of Relativity, very well indeed.

No, there is also the reality that those models are based on, checked against and corrected by until they are accurate.

This sentence is just garbled to the point that no real meaning can be extracted from it. You do know that both SR and GR are included in the Theory of Relativity, don't you? There's no conflict between them. Why can you not write simple declarative sentences that make your position understandable instead of the horribly butchered word salad of the above? Try again. And never use that stupid, meaningless phrase "energy-space" again until you explain, plainly, what you think it means. And both me and Russ are perfectly able to indicate what we agree with, you cannot force us to agree with the non-sense you post by claiming falsely that we agree with your non-sense.

Run away! Run for your life!:runaway:

When you come back be prepared to simply explain what energy-space means and where you got it, or be prepared to be called out about ever using it again. I've given you Relativity 101, deal with it.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi Grumpy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Einstein stated that space has energy and is not empty. I came to the same conclusion via my own independent ToE process from scratch, so I have to agree with him! Moreover, my ToE also,unlike Einstein and successors abstract theories, goes on to provide and explain in physical reality terms the origins, nature and mechanisms of the universal energy-space and the evolving dynamics/features as well! Energy-space has properties, as Einstein pointed out in his equations/terms for same. If you aren't prepared to do due diligence on Einstein's or others statements/perspectives then you are self-limiting your relevance and possibly opening up the potential for your own "WOO" which seems to issue straight from texbooks which have simplistic 'comic book version' of what it's all about. Anyhow, I have pointed out certain 'woo' things from you and others in my observations on your discussions with Farsight. Now Russ and przyk have withdrawn their 'objections' based on 'woo' like co-ordinate frames abstractions/analyses which are made moot in the real local GR effects empirically self-determining actual phenomena re clocks and light in GR fileds, and not abstract 'interpretations' of same. That's all anyone can do. You may call it 'woo' to point out the bleedin obvious real local things instead of abstract irrelavancies in such situations, but that's because your own 'abstraction woo' seems to be more preferable to you than the reality in front of you. Oh well, the information/observations are before you. What you will do now is up to you. But maybe at our age it's time for you and certain others here to put those old textbook understanding 'comic book versions' aside and opt for the reality based perspective, isn't it? Good luck.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

RC

He said it has energy IN IT and is not empty.

Gobbledegoop. So you made a bunch of crap up on your own? Even Einstein stood on the shoulders of giants. So energy-space is a meaningless, made up concept hatched by your ignorance of Relativity you just thought you would throw into a conversation about SR and GR effects? No wonder you've got everything so wrong.

No, you haven't made sense yet, just like Farsight. What Farsight was saying about slower lightspeed is a stupid claim, we know it is never measured to travel any other speed than c and no amount of internet woo is going to change that fact. His diagram does not illustrate time dilation properly, so his answer based upon that error was dead wrong.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is the correct illustration showing that light speed remains constant, even in accelerated frames, and that it is time itself being dilated by the motion or acceleration.

The upper left diagram is what a comoving observer sees, the upper right what a stationary observer sees in a moving clock, notice the lines between mirrors are longer, light takes longer to tick, so time is slowed down in the moving frame. SR tells us that both observers see this in the other's clocks and without reference to things outside the two of them, neither could determine which one was moving and which stationary. In SR all that is dealt with is Relative motion.

The bottom left illustrates acceleration from rest of a comoving observer in GR(or of a comoving observer in a gravity field), the bottom right is acceleration in an already moving frame from the the perspective of a stationary observer. Notice the "adjusted" lines. Under acceleration the beam bends because between the time the photon is emitted and the time it reaches the mirror, the mirror has moved and the photon hits behind the detector. Adjusting the angle so that the photon once again hits the sensor you form an arc to the other mirror. All curved lines are longer than a straight one between the same two points, so that photon now takes longer to get to the sensor even though the photon is moving at c. Time moves slower under acceleration/gravity, light continues to move at c, just like Einstein said. In the comoving frame time is slowed down to the extent that they continue to measure lightspeed the same between the two mirrors, to the stationary observer, the light travels a longer distance at the same lightspeed the stationary observer measures with his clock and the comovers are seen to be moving slower in time. Under GR acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity(we describe gravity in terms of acceleration for a reason, we also describe acceleration in terms of G).

Now what part of the above explanation are you having trouble understanding? Notice I didn't use that scary "Frame" word yet still got it done. And no math. This is time dilation with constant c, just like Einstein put into SR and GR and it is the same today as it was 100 years ago. I would put money on a bet that it will still be valid science 100 years from now.

No, they have agreed that our abstractions are an invention, but that does not make them invalid or moot, far from it, they are essential to understanding Relativity, different frames see different things so specifying the frame is vital to being able to make sense of the whole thing. They cannot be ignored or discarded. Relativity is about comparing one frame relative to another.

The abstractions describe the reality, they are not woo, they are not irrelevant and even if you discarded them you would have to make up a whole new set(maybe metric this time)to replace them with. But then your new ones are abstractions, too. And I know much more about the reality in front of me than you have shown that you know about it. You've admitted to making it up as you go along.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No no no! What do you think he was on about when he said the gravitating mass affects the space-time such as to curve it? He was obviously discussing space as something and time as something else, and joined the two. Only as you now have been finding out from Maxila, 'time' is not real, only motion(energy fluctuations/perturbations/propagations etc) are real in/across real space. Hence it should NOW be what he meant it to be before that abstract derived 'time' got tagged onto the real observable 'space' part. So NOW we know it's ENERGY/MOTION-space and not some abstract maths/geometry model construct called 'time-space'.

If you don't drop your impressions based only on abstract 'time-space' construct, you will never see what Einstein actually though of in his original insights which had space as something real; and the energy part of it represented the dynamical evolution of energy-space itself which is conditioned further by those evolved features in a gravity and e-m processing manner which gives the phenomena and diversity we observe in the underlying universal energy-space context.

The 'time' abstraction (DERIVED from the real motion/energy dynamics across/in real space) came later and was useful for the maths modeling, but did not explain the underlying mechanisms of reality. Hence we STILL have no clue from the professional theorists about what mechanism for gravity, do we, Grumpy. That should tell you something, surely, after all these years, about the limitations of abstract 'space-time' models/theories, yes?

Go back to the original insights of Einstein like Farsight advises, and drop all the later mathematician overlay abstractions/distractions from reality which Einstein himself saw were taking his original real insights into never-never land and he had to go along with the mathematicians because he hadn't the whole reality picture (like I will be publishing soon).

Good luck, Grumpy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ahh, so you admit that "energy-space" is a term you invented?

In appears you lost track of your own nonsense: you accosted me, not the other way around. I haven't withdrawn anything because I'm not the one who put forward an objection to what you were saying!

By the way - I love how you think you have a ToE that doesn't include any math or testable predictions! Delicious!

What I find so fascinating about you and Farsight is the fact that you speak volumes and yet actually have nothing at all to say. For all Farsight's blather about the speed of light not being constant, it turns out that's just a swap of one term for another that therefore has no impact on the science. The only real difference from the theory is his objection to what happens at the event horizon, which isn't testable right now anyway. As I said before, most crackpots I've come across actually have real objections, so you guys are a new phenomena to me. I'll coin a term to describe it: "Empty Crackpottery". It simply means a lot of crackpot blather that actually says nothing.

Also funny here is your current course that appears to be intended to provoke. I'm not paddoboy and I can't be provoked in the way you provoked him. I won't return your insults and I'm just fine with you keeping the discussion about the nature of crackpottery since it keeps you from discussing your crackpot ideas themselves. You seem to have forgotten that that's why you are here, which I find hilarious.

 

The easiest way to explain how gravity works is to assume the speed of light is the ground state of the universe. All matter will set a potential with this ground state to create a number of effects, including gravity. This premise is inferred from the observation that matter is net going to energy, instead of energy to matter, in our universe. When stars fuse nuclei and mass burn there is net mass to energy. If matter was at the lower potential, matter would be increasing in the universe and energy would be lowering.

That being said, gravity simply reflects a way for matter to lower potential with the ground state, by moving in the direction of the C-reference. As matter collects due to gravity, the local space-time moves in the direction of the speed of light reference, with the black hole getting as close as possible.

The reason the current theories get so confusing is we don't use the correct ground state.

 

The photon's gravitational field is irrelevant. And it doesn't gain any kinetic energy, just as the SR photon doesn't gain any energy when you accelerate towards it. If you drop an electron some of the electron mass-energy is converted into kinetic energy, but the photon doesn't have any mass, it's nothing but kinetic energy. You can use Compton scattering to convert some of the photon energy into electron kinetic energy. If you do another Compton scatter on the selfsame photon and repeat, in the limit all the E=hf wave energy has gone, the wave no longer exists, and the photon has been entirely converted into electron kinetic energy.

But Einstein told you why light curves, because the speed of light varies with position. And you know about the wave nature of matter. So if you rub a couple of brain cells together you can come up with the OP to this thread.

That's at odds with just about everything Einstein ever said. Like the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. It contains energy. Energy is a thing. Matter is made of it. It causes gravity.

So the 511keV photon doesn't gain any energy.

 

It's the map, not the territory, and it is static. The territory is inhomogeneous space and motion through it.

No I don't. What I've said is there is no literal time flowing or passing in a clock. And that a clock clocks up some kind of regular cyclic motion, so when the clock goes slower it's because that motion goes slower. That applies to mechanical clocks, quartz clocks, atomic clocks, optical clocks, and the idealised parallel-mirror light clock.

Pay attention. Clocks clock up some kind of regular cyclic motion. So in any empirical observation or experiment time is always a magnitude of change in position.

Not quite, because displacement is a vector whilst distance is a scalar. You can have a negative displacement, but not a negative distance.

 

You won't get any argument from me on the usefulness and predictive ability of GR in countless circumstances, or the quantum leap it gave us in understanding; I agree with you on that completely. However understand for centuries you could say the same for Newtons model of gravity, and even today we more often use Newtonian calculations where GR's precision is not necessary. The purpose of my point is only that there are issues in the GR model, and just as Mercury's precession turned out to be a clue that model was not prefect, those issues should be considered a possibility GR may not be perfect too. I almost never see physicists seriously consider both possibilities for those issues before creating something like dark energy, to explain the unexpected observational evidence, as a way to make the model work again; that was done with Mercury's orbit and Newtonian dynamics. In my opinion good science should look equally hard at both possibilities. The QM argument is only one example of many that supports looking hard at the model too, in lieu of just saying it's not GR's domain and it's still perfect.

 

Sadly it would be wasted energy replying to the, biased rationalizations, and obfuscation of testable, verifiable facts, and irrelevant innuendo. It's human nature to rationalize facts to fit their existing knowledge/beliefs, the history of science is strewn with examples. Your post is no different then a zealot who argues the Earth was created in 7 days by god, you just delude yourself into believing your arguing science, when you mainly rationalize beliefs, that's irony at its best. Preach that brand of religion to someone else, I won't waste the time.

In a prior post you speculated, I was a conservative, believed in god, in this post you stated as fact I don’t know what a differential was. You were wrong on every count and it is poor science to speculate without evidence, very sad indeed…. at the same time it tell's me a lot about you, best wishes and goodbye.

 

GR is likely not perfect, but dark energy is not a potential flaw in it because dark energy is not a component of GR. You are confusing GR with the Big Bang Theory.

 

Why do you ignore that Einstein abandoned such clocks entirely?

Einstein wrote, in Relativity, Chapter 28:

So can we please move away from considering clocks in the form of regular cyclical motion? Like Einstein wanted us to?

 

The red-shift predictions for the expansion of space are a GR component and when observations of distant supernova showed as distance increase the SN were fainter than expected. Dark energy was necessary accommodate GR's predicted expansion of space, red-shift, and the unexpected faintness of the super nova, observed. Also inflation aside (Alan Guth's theory), the Big bang is mostly an extrapolation of GR backwards in time to the point of the singularity.

 

Maxila

No one claims that GR and SR are perfect and everlasting. The precession of Mercury was a problem that pointed out the flaws of Newton, but I know of no evidence of problems in GR, though, like all knowledge it is subject to revision, falsification or replacement given new evidence or understanding. It not as if there's no one trying to find one, just that they haven't had much success.

Do you think what I have posted is woo, as RC seems to think?

What did they create, a name? Observations say the Universe's expansion is accelerating, this represents a huge amount of energy(representing 75% of the total mass of the Universe), yet it does not push apart gravity bound systems. Gravity is the weakest force we know, so if it can overcome DE at short distances, yet be overpowered by it over large ones, the DE must be distributed evenly over those large distances. The largest structures in the Universe today are the voids between strands of matter that are almost completely empty. That's about all we know. None of this has anything to do with Relativity. When Einstein produced his work he did not know the Universe was expanding at all, he thought it was static, he was wrong about that.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Maxila

SR shows why redshift happens, true, but it is an observed fact, it's called Doppler shift. You can hear a close analogy in a train whistle going by. But Einstein showed that to be true in 1906, but he made no mention of an expanding Universe, he thought it was static, he put in the Cosmological Constant to keep it from collapsing in his GR paper. He called it his biggest mistake when the Universe was found to be expanding in the 50s by Hubble, rendering the CC unnecessary. Isn't it funny, though, the the CC has many of the characteristics of Dark Energy? And, actually, it was a deep field survey of millions of galaxies that showed the accelerated expansion, it's only been obvious for the last few billion years.

It is a backward extrapolation to a point of very high density, whether by Einstein or by Newton, most things in spacetime are in low energy areas, on average. So Newton works pretty well to illustrate the same thing once observations were sufficient. Doppler is an observed fact, Relativity explains it. But we don't need explanations to use observed facts, our ancestors used the observed fact that the sun rose every morning to define the day, even if their explanations of the phenomina were ludicrous and usually involved magic.

RC

Non-sense, energy and mass and speed can only slow the rate of time. Remove them and time is not slowed. You won't be able to measure it without "Clocks, for which the law of motion is any kind, however irregular, serve for the definition of time", so you won't be able to define it, but it will still be passing anyway. Since there is no such thing as empty/energyless space, time always would exist in your paradigm as well. Time is a dimension we all move through, you cannot stop moving from your past to your future, though you can slow down time's passage for you and those who share your frame by traveling at a significant fraction of lightspeed through local space time, or by accelerating(even in a circle by centripetal force), or by moving deeper in a gravity well. Time is as real as you are. In fact I have more evidence that time has passed than I do about your existence.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

PhysBang, Grumpy, haven't time or health to continue posting today, so I will have to make detailed responses in a few days. I have already posted a more exhaustive response to many of the issues raised by you et al in one of the other Farsight associated-discussions thread: "The speed of light is not constant", post #370, including an FYI 'disclaimer' which you should look at before any further 'impressions' as my involvement as observer of these discussions. Thanks.

While I'm here, I will briefly respond to your following:

So you agree that whatever the regularity or not involved, it is the clock processing matter/energy rate that is then abstracted for some mathematical convenient graphing values/dimension axis called 'time' as part of the mathematical-only space-time abstract construct?

Didn't you read my explanation that in the absence of energy and mass all you are left with is the Purely philosophical NOTION of 'time' as some 'duration concept' irrespective of universe, energy, mass 'clocking systems' existing or not? Your impression seems to overlay the philosophical notion onto the physical concept/tool abstraction/maths 'dimensional axis' for analytical constructs which WE 'invent' after the events which gave rise to the observable/extractable information which gives our 'derived abstract dimensional tool axis values for 'time'.

Like I tried to explain to chinglu in that alternative theories thread: you have to stop overlaying YOUR philosophical notion of 'duration time irrespective of existence concepts/things', and constrain yourself to only the empirical processes and observables from which WE extract a useful abstraction/comparison relation which we the use in a further abstract/maths 'spacetime' construct we invented. Until you do that separation the same conflations/confusions will infect every argument/interpretation you offer.


The cold getting worse. Back to bed! Cheers and good luck and enjoy your further discussions with whoever. Bye for now.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

RC

Yes, our definition and description of time are inventions for our convenience, but whether there are events or not to measure and define time, it is still a real property of spacetime.

I didn't want to insult your intelligence by treating it as if you actually believed such non-sense. But in the absence of energy you have time passing at it's maximum rate, your inability to measure that passage(however much it causes you vapors) in the absence of energy is really a personal problem, the Universe could not care less. And you STILL haven't tackled the slope from high energy/slow time to low energy/fast time and what mechanism turns the lights out for time when it is at it's maximum rate when the last energy leaves(and turns them back on if a single erg appears). This is gibberish, time doesn't care one bit if you can measure or describe it. Energy in no way makes time exist, it makes it measurable and it only slows down time's rate. Any natural process can be used as a clock, a clock allows you to measure time, but time passes whether you have a clock or not. Clocks do not create the time they measure, they describe it in standardized terms we humans can understand. They are subject to time's rate(as are all natural processes), not the other way round.

It not philosophical to accept spacetime as an accurate model of how the Universe works. It is, however, logical.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Since we're using words, we must be talking about some abstract construct.