At Rest with our Hubble view

[Farsight]

I think I have waited long enough now; it is obvious that no intervention from the moderator team is forthcoming, nor is my position with regards to the classification of threads even being acknowledged. I do not wish to be associated with a forum that permits the level of intellectual dishonesty...

It's a physics discussion. I give references to Einstein and hard scientific evidence to back up my contribution. You reject those references, and say things like "nonsense". You still won't acknowledge the distinction between space and spacetime even when I've referred you to the Baez article many times, and you continue to call me an aether crackpot even though I've referred repeatedly to arXiv etc to demonstrate the provenance. I'm afraid you have demonstrated ignorance and dishonesty, and it's patently clear to everybody that once you lost the argument, you started throwing out ad-hominems and calling for censorship. It doesn't look good Markus.

Do however try to learn something from this, and not just on a personal level. I would encourage you to read the original material and think for yourself instead of believing every last aspect of your textbook.

 

[Tach]

Mine are not fringe misconceptions. The coordinate speed of light varies in a non-inertial reference such as a gravitational field. You know this.

Coordinate speed of light has no bearing on the two light clocks example.

You know I know it.

I know that you don't know any physics, you just pretend you do.

You know that the coordinate speed of light reduces in line with gravitational potential.

Coordinate speed of light is not the light speed in the light clock experiment. Local speed of light is. And that is c, invariant. You will never learn physics, Duffield.

And by the way, a couple of pages back you gave a pathetic response to the parallel-mirror light-clocks gif, claiming that the distance was greater for the lower clock.

Interestingly enough, my claim is correct. As opposed to your crackpottery, I happen to be able to calculate.

That's garbage, and you know it.

LOL

In GR we talk of radial length contraction.

Who is "we"? Certianly what you are doing has nothing to do with GR, it is purely crank stuff.

The mirrors are orthogonal to this.

...but the distance between mirrors, the one traveled by light is NOT. Take a hint, Duffield.

And the radial length contraction increases when you go lower. Distance reduce, not increase.

For free falling objects, yes, for hovering ones, the opposite is true. If you spent some some learning math rather than collecting soundbites about GR, you'd know that, John.

You are talking garbage. You know it, everybody knows it.

Yes, we know that you've been posting garbage for years, John. Didn't work then, doesn't work now.

 

[Cheezle]

I suppose we do have gravitational lensing. But projection isn't why the lower clock goes slower.

Never mind. It is a subject that isn't for everybody.

It is slower. That's why the lower clock goes slower than the upper clock. That's why the lower NIST optical clock goes slower than the upper NIST optical clock that's only 30cm higher. There are no "frames". A frame is an abstraction. You can see a clock, you can see light, but you can't see a frame. Both clocks are just sitting there in front of you, a foot apart. I'm not na�ve. Or blind. Now come on, try explaining how one clock can be going slower than the other when the light in both clocks is going at the same speed. See my response to Tach above. A greater distance isn't the answer.

As I said, your gif diagram is missing information. It is a naive version of what is really happening. While the clock's bouncing photon is not experiencing contraction or expansion in the orientation it is drawn. There is still length contraction in the problem. You are just blind to it. In order to watch the clock, which is what you appear to be doing, the light is traveling down from the higher clock to your position at the lower clock (or vice versa). Those light rays are traveling at the speed of light but the spacetime it is traveling through is not flat. It is kind of hyperbolic. Pythagorean theorem does not hold. It is very similar to the SR twin paradox. It is all about paths and duration and not about your perception. The image you see of the clock is a projection. Projection means dimensional flattening. It seems like the problem is three dimensional but it isn't. That is why I mentioned the idea of perspective in the story. The image gets flattened in the projection and the idea speed light seems to have slowed.

In SR twin paradox, the twin in the space ship can accelerate directly away from you and the return on the same path. If you watched with a telescope you would see the clock slow but no length contraction due to the orientation. The length contraction would be in the direction of travel and hidden from you. But the twins would still be different ages at the end of the experiment. Not seeing the length contraction does not mean it does not effect the final outcome of the experiment.

The interesting thing about my story was that the blind man is oblivious to the perspective problem. He can not be involved in any visual distortion being blind. But in the GR problem he would be able to detect some differences. Those differences are due to the path through space and time he takes to visit the two clocks. He would notice that any duration recorded at the clocks would be in conflict. But he would never see your idea of what is happening because your gif relies on the process of sight that is being flattened to lower dimensionality.

 

[Cheezle]

Here is a better explanation. The two clocks in the gif are experiencing the equivalence of acceleration, both accelerating but at different rates. When you see videos about SR they show the light clock at right angle to the path the accelerated spaceship is traveling in. For us, the stationary observer, the light pulse seems to travel in a diagonal path. Zigzagging back and forth. And that way it is easy to see that the clock ticks slower relative to our clock. The pulse always travels at the speed of light but the path is longer. But if you turn the clock so that the light path is aligned with the direction the of travel, it does not cause the clock to tick faster. Time is still dilated in the spaceship. The case of the two GR clocks is exactly the same. The orientation of the clock does not cause the time dilation change (which is not a speed but a duration effect). So your idea that the length contraction can't matter due to clock orientation is bogus. Length contraction is still in the picture. In your gif the light pulse in the upper clock is still following a diagonal path (through spacetime) in relation to us at the lower position clock. The speed of light is still the same for both clocks.

 

[hansda]

Would it follow that the "time rate" is dependent on the energy density of the environment of the clock?

"Time rate" can be considered as "time" as indicated by a local clock. Since the local clock is affected by "gravitational force" or "spacetime curvature" at that location, so the "time rate" is dependent on gravity.

 

[quantum_wave]

"Time rate" can be considered as "time" as indicated by a local clock. Since the local clock is affected by "gravitational force" or "spacetime curvature" at that location, so the "time rate" is dependent on gravity.

Yes, time ticked off on a clock in the local frame has a rate, and that rate is governed by the energy density of the environment of that frame. The energy density can be affected by the gravity or by relavite velocity if I'm not mistaken. And that is exactly what the thread is getting at. A frame can be at rest relative to the energy background, and abscent of any mass, all clocks at rest to the background will tick at the same rate. Any motion relative to the background will affect the tick rate, so moving a clock in any direction changes the tick rate, and moving the clock relative to any mass will also affect the tick rate, in my understanding.

 

[hansda]

The energy density can be affected by the gravity or by relavite velocity if I'm not mistaken.

I know gravity is depended on mass or relativistic velocity. Potential Energy is depended on gravity. What do you mean by "energy density"? "Potential Energy density" or something else?

 

[quantum_wave]

I know gravity is depended on mass or relativistic velocity. Potential Energy is depended on gravity. What do you mean by "energy density"? "Potential Energy density" or something else?

Hypothetically in my so called model, gravity is wave energy traversing the medium of space, and I refer to the gravity wave content of space as the energy density of that space. At any point in space, the highest net directional wave energy density of the gravitational waves is the direction that an object will move.

Motion through space, even remote to any massive object, increases the energy density of an object by effectively increasing the wave energy density in the direction of motion.

 

[Undefined]

What is the Gravitational potential at a given altitude in a gravity well referring to if not energy density in a region of space so affected? What is the Potential referred to by that mainstream physicist term if not the gravitational energy? Does that Gravitational Energy potential vary according to altitude in gravity wells? Why is it so difficult for you to grasp the obvious meaning? Is games with semantics and spurious "corrections" and "hair-splitting" (which latter you accused others of recently, to great laughter from the forum at the obtuseness and irony of it!) your only recourse when you know you are wrong but insist on "correcting" where your "correction" is not correct and only serves to disrupt polite discussion? Please stop muddying things like a troll, Tach; stop playing insincere ego-tripping games the likes of which you were given a "little holiday" for recently. I look forward to reading better from you in future. Bye for now.

I see, so the answer is "yes", you made up this term all by yourself.

That was not the question I asked.

That was also not the question. So, it is clear that you do not know the answers to the two questions I asked you and that you are back to your favorite past time: trolling.

As can be seen clearly, Tach is again at his old "strawman correcting" and discussion-disrupting hair-splitting semantic game playing (trolling) again.

The management has advised me to just ignore Tach and his antics (and any other trolls behaving similarly). So no further comment.

 

[Undefined]

Yes, we know already that standard GR makes a lot of predictions which can be directly tested and verified. Such as these :

http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/29823-modern-tests-relativity.html

We know these because they are empirical facts, which can be recreated in repeatable, standardised experimental setups. And every single one of them is in perfect accordance with the standard interpretation of GR, being curved space-time. Farsight's variable speed of light, on the other hand, directly violates basic physical principles such as Snell's law, and can easily be demonstrated to not yield the correct numbers. I have provided all that evidence in the form of appropriate links and maths. You can of course choose to disregard that evidence, like Farsight does, but this will be your personal choice. I said it before and I say it again - in the day and age of easily accessible information, ignorance is always a personal choice.

So yes. There are things we already know, whether you like that or not.

Yes, sure, we "know already" that the theory can describe and predict gravity phenomena, but that same theory has not yet made "known" what actually causes it and by what mechanism the space surrounding an energy-mass body is affected (conditioned) to create the observed trajectories/phenomena due to gravitation. We should be true to the actual status quo regarding "knowledge" of gravity's cause and mechanism; and avoid hubristic/simplistic claims about it which may mislead us into thinking we "know already" the actual causes and mechanisms involved (and not just the GR abstraction of the effects as maths/geometry). Thanks anyway, Markus Hanke, your responses/discussions so far all appreciated by me for one, whether I agreed or not with your stance on the matter in question in each instance. Take care. Bye.

 

[Tach]

Hi quantum_wave. Is Tach now trying to deny the existence of varying Gravitational Energy (aka Gravitational Potential energy) densities which affect clock rates? Amazing!

What gives you this bright idea? Are you just trolling as usual or are you outright lying? Quite the contrary, I explained it in great detail in this post.
Let's try to test your knowledge a little, which term in $$(1-r_s/r)-v^2/(1-r_s/r)-r^2 \omega^2$$ encodes the gravitational potential?
How does the gravitational potential variation affect clock rates?

 

[Undefined]

What gives you this bright idea? Are you just trolling as usual or are you outright lying? Quite the contrary, I explained it in great detail in this post.
Let's try to test your knowledge a little, which term in $$(1-r_s/r)-v^2/(1-r_s/r)-r^2 \omega^2$$ encodes the gravitational potential?
How does the gravitational potential variation affect clock rates?

Did you not understand the rhetorical questions:

"What does the mainstream term "gravitational potential" refer to if not to "gravitational energy potential"?

And:

"How does that energy vary with altitude in a gravity well?"

And:

"What is varying if not the "density" of that energy according to the different space regions involved?"

And:

"Does any given clock's tick rate depend on and vary with its altitude in a gravity well?"

The meaning is obvious in the context. If you cannot understand the obvious observable mainstream scientific facts, and instead prefer to (again) troll and "correct" strawmen of your own making followed by the usual irrelevant "little tests" which are all distractions from the original point made by others in context, well....never mind, that is why management has advised me and others to just ignore you and not be drawn into your silly useless troll games; hence, no further comment.

 

[arfa brane]

Gravitational potential has units of m[sup]2[/sup]s[sup]-2[/sup]. That is, units of energy per unit mass.
So it isn't really energy.

 

[Undefined]

Gravitational potential has units of m[sup]2[/sup]s[sup]-2[/sup]. That is, units of energy per unit mass.
So it isn't really energy.

That statement already effectively implies the essential step/understanding that the energy gained/lost by that mass in a gravity well is a function of the effect of the gravitational field energy imparted/removed via acceleration of said mass by whatever mechanism imparts/removes that energy to/from its rest mass as it moves through the gravitationally 'conditioned' space regions. So it is "energy" that is being converted from one form to another. And that energy comes from and is lost to "gravity" effect within the affected space regions it passes through; which affected space regions are 'conditioned' by the associated gravitational potential energy density "gradient" associated with the central gravitating body generating the gravity field/well gradient involved. Yes?

 

[Motor Daddy]

good bye.

Don't go away mad, just go away!

 

[Undefined]

Motor Daddy. That is not helpful nor is it any better than what you (and many of us also) decry in others. Would you please do me a great personal favor and remove it of your own accord asap? Let your and Markus Hanke's bygones be bygones, hey? Thanks.

Edit: I will stay logged on for a while and will delete this when I see you have deleted yours above. Please.

 

[Tach]

The meaning is obvious in the context.

The meaning is that you did not understand my post. This is confirmed by your inability to answer the two very simple questions.

 

[arfa brane]

That statement already effectively implies the essential step/understanding that the energy gained/lost by that mass in a gravity well is a function of the effect of the gravitational field energy imparted/removed via acceleration of said mass by whatever mechanism imparts/removes that energy to/from its rest mass as it moves through the gravitationally 'conditioned' space regions.

Gravitational potential is defined as: the energy required to move a unit mass to infinity, divided by the unit mass. Obviously, the farther down the well any unit mass is, the more energy is required to move it (anywhere). Note that this 'movement' isn't acceleration, but displacement (the distance is 'fixed' by being infinite).

So it is "energy" that is being converted from one form to another. And that energy comes from and is lost to "gravity" effect within the affected space regions it passes through; which affected space regions are 'conditioned' by the associated gravitational potential energy density "gradient" associated with the central gravitating body generating the gravity field/well gradient involved. Yes?

Not sure, sorry. But note that in order to have gravitational energy (hence energy density), you need to calculate the kinetic energy (of motion) required to move a unit mass to infinity, and not divide by mass.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Motor Daddy. That is not helpful nor is it any better than what you (and many of us also) decry in others. Would you please do me a great personal favor and remove it of your own accord asap? Let your and Markus Hanke's bygones be bygones, hey? Thanks.

Edit: I will stay logged on for a while and will delete this when I see you have deleted yours above. Please.

The reason I have such hard feelings towards Markus is because he and his buddies censored me by banning me. If you are a mod in disguise then ban me if you must, but I will not change my attitude or remarks towards that POS!

 

[Undefined]

The meaning is that you did not understand my post. This is confirmed by your inability to answer the two very simple questions.

Your usual twisting of others points led you to again misunderstand the meaning of the obvious implied by the rhetorical questions:

"What does the mainstream term "gravitational potential" refer to if not to "gravitational energy potential"?

And:

"How does that energy vary with altitude in a gravity well?"

And:

"What is varying if not the "density" of that energy according to the different space regions involved?"

And:

"Does any given clock's tick rate depend on and vary with its altitude in a gravity well?"

The meaning is obvious in the original context. Your usual games of diverting and disrupting in order to "manufacture" your "strawman corrections" and "irrelevant tests" etc will not be entered into.

If you cannot understand the obvious observable mainstream scientific facts, and instead prefer to (again) troll and "correct" strawmen of your own making followed by the usual irrelevant "little tests" which are all distractions from the original point made by others in context, well....never mind.

That is why management has advised me and others to just ignore you and not be drawn into your silly useless troll games; hence, no further comment.