At Rest with our Hubble view

Markus, I remember a time on another science forum (in an alternative views section) where you refused to even look at evidence when presented to you which contradicted what your mainstream ideas were. Instead you repeatedly argued against something you claimed to not even have seen. Is that the type of person you are, one that claims higher intelligence unless confronted with evidence, which you then ignore and you and your buddies ban the person? Blah, you make me sick.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I got no help with this explanation and so either it is perfect or no one cares if it is wrong.

I'm still testing my understanding of it though, so I will expand the explanation in my own words to see if anyone will correct or acknowledge it.

In this example, the existence of two inertial reference frames simply means that there is relative motion between the frames. We can have a single clock that exists in both frames. We can have an observer in each frame who observes that one clock. Each observer is in motion relative to each other, but in this example observer A is at rest relative to the common clock and observer B is in motion at a constant velocity away from the common clock as he observes it.

They both have wrist stopwatches and observer A's watch stays at rest relative to the common clock while observer B's watch moves with him in his frame. They pre-plan the distance that observer B is going to travel during the experiment and calculate how long he will have to travel to go that distance. The mile markers are laid out along the planned path in advance. Both observers will stop their watches when the planned time has elapsed in their local frame. For observer B, that elapsed time is expected to correspond to the planned distance and will occur at the planned mile marker.

Observer B sets out on his planned motion relative to the common clock.

When they compare the passing of time on their watch to the passing of time on the common clock, observer A will see no difference while observer B will notice that the common clock appears to be ticking slower than his wristwatch.

During his motion relative to the common clock, observer B measures the wavelength of the light coming from the common clock and assigns it a value x and he measures the wavelenght of the light coming from his watch and assigns it value y. The difference between x and y corresponds to the redshift in the light coming from the common clock vs the light coming from is local wristwatch.

Observer A who is standing next to the clock and whose wristwatch is the same distance from his eye as the common clock is from his eye, measures the wavelength of the light from both the clock and his watch and assigns a value x and y respectively. In his case x = y because there is no relative motion and thus no redshift between his watch and the common clock.

When observer B reaches the agreed planned mile marker, observer B stops his wrist stopwatch, he stops and sets it down on the pavement at the agreed mile marker. Also when the agreed planned time has elapsed according to observer A's wrist stopwatch, he stops his watch as well.

Leaving his stopwatch behind but taking his recored wavelength values back with him, observer B then goes back to the common clock and meets up with observer A. They compare their measured wavelength values of the light coming from the common clock. Observer B's difference in measured wavelength coming from the common clock is attributed to red-shifting. They evaluate the results as follows:

They conclude that time didn't slow down and that light travels at the same velocity in all frames.

Observer B observed a slower tick rate of the common clock and states that it appeared to run slower while he was moving away from it.

Observer A confirmed that the common clock did not slow down compared to his wristwatch, and so they jointly concluded that the appearance of slowing of the common clock from observer B's frame could be explained by the relative motion.

They had data to quantify that relative motion because observer B has the wavelength difference recorded during his period of relative motion, and observer A observed no wavelength difference.

They decide that the wavelength difference recorded by observer B must correspond to the distance travelled during B's relative motion, and they decide to divide the distance by the change in wavelength to quantify the relationship, giving them a meaningful equation that relates motion to distance and gives them the expected difference in wavelength that will be observed during that motion.

They write it up and explain that since the light leaving the clock face had further to travel to meet observer B's eye, then during his motion away from the clock the common clock appears to slow down. Observer A standing by the common clock sees the time correspond with his watch and knows for a fact that the common clock did not slow down, so they attribute the difference in observed tick rate of the common clock to the change in the wavelength that was recorded by observer B.

Question: Will the elapsed time on the stopwatch left behind by observer B agree with the elapsed time on observer A's stopwatch?

If not, why not?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope, not "distance". Time rate. You manged to bungle this one.

Nope, nothing to do with "distance". Everything to do with clock rate. I posted the explanation, you obviously understood nothing.

Yes, you understand Farsight well. Too bad you can't understand mainstream science as well.

The distance isn't the same, this is where Duffield (Farsight) is wrong.

It is wrong. See above.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Would it be correct to rephrase it as follows: GR explains the difference in observations of clock tick rates between two different frames by transforming the measurements of distance "time rate" from one frame to the other.

The equations include the constant speed of light as a common denominator and thus, they calculate what the difference in distance "time rate" measurements would have to be between frames in order to make the speed of light come out the same, and thus to explain the observed difference in clocked time by a difference in the distance ("distance" not changed to "time rate" here, right?) light has to travel. Yes?

How can I differentiate between "distance" and "time rate", i.e. what makes them different in this context?

Does this link explain it properly? http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/56357/understanding-how-the-rate-of-time-changes

 

Would it follow that the "time rate" is dependent on the energy density of the environment of the clock? Would it follow that the energy density changes as relative motion between frames changes? Would it follow that relative motion determines the specific time rate difference between frames?

 

The effects are explained reasonably well here.

The origin of the effects due to change in speed and gravitational potential fall out easily from the Schwarzschild solution:


\((cd\tau)^2=(1-r_s/r)(cdt)^2-dr^2/(1-r_s/r)-r^2 (d \theta)^2\)

From the above, on easily gets:

\((d\tau)^2=dt^2[(1-r_s/r)-v^2/(1-r_s/r)-r^2 \omega^2]\)

 

I'm sure they do, but you were silent on my corrections. Does my revised wording come out right, including leaving the word "distance" in the last sentence? Also, do you want to venture answers to my questions in post #550?

 

With the greatest respect, Markus hanke, maybe if we didn't make "over-stating of status quo" statements like that we would all be better off?

Maybe we should say: "What we already ah hoc assume and mathematically/geometrically abstractly model and then interpret the observed effects within an abstract interpretational construct rather than explain the cause"?

For example, we observe that things "fall down" and we call the effect "gravity" and model and abstractly interpret all that mathematically/geometrically, without having any real explanation as to what the cause and mechanism is that leads to observed effects (eg., how energy-mass "conditions" the space around it to induce the observed "falling down" of things within that conditioned space?).

It is when we egotistically 'contract' all that actual state of affairs into a misleadingly abbreviated "claim to knowledge already in hand" (like you made above) that we lose sight of what we actually know and what we actually don't know "already".

Well, if we all dropped such wide ranging claims "to know already" and actually realize what we don't know already, maybe you would have more creative discussion instead of the constant clash of preconceived stances based on claims to know which aren't valid claims when closely examined according to what actually is or is not "known"? In other words, just labeling and abstractly modeling/interpreting effects does not necessarily or automatically imply actual knowledge of actual causes and mechanisms. Yes?

I hope you and Farsight can get past your respective "baggage" and re-set your discussions based on a common agreement about what IS actually "known" and what is still "speculative" on both sides of the discussion?

I naively think that would help you and him have a real creative discussion! Thanks to both of you for your discussions so far, anyway, because I for one have found it very interesting and stimulating to observe. A "creative discussion" is maybe "in the eye of the beholder" in this instance as far as I am concerned!

I am still very busy but will keep reading you all as often as I can. Bye for now, and good luck to you both, Farsight and Markus hanke, until I have time to post again!

 

This question is nonsensical, so it cannot be answered.

More nonsense of the same kind.

I already answered that.

 

Thanks for nothing.

 

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!

 

I have noticed that he is rarely sincere. Thanks for the input.

 

What gives you this bright idea? Quite the contrary, I explained it in great detail in this post. Was it that difficult for you to follow? 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?
For extra points, what is "gravitational potential energy density"? It cannot be found in any physics book, so did you make it up all by yourself?

 

Undefined, I think you are way off the mark! Marcus, was right on the mark.

The issue was conceptual interpretation, which may then lead to new insights. There is nothing wrong with the math or geometric model he has been presenting and defending. They are predictive tools that have one of the best track records available in theoretical physics. Any new conceptual interpretation must meet the standard of success, of what we already know or it is a lost cause out of the gate.

We all sometimes in presenting what we understand of physics, present it with some measure of certainty that exceeds the theoretical basis. This is something which is not limited to discussion groups on the Internet.

I ran into a working particle physicist years back, on a cruise around South America. He noticed me reading a physics book and started up a conversation. We spent close to an hour discussing his work at Stanford (I think it was), he had been doing high energy research on muon decay, if I remember correctly. When I turned the focus of the conversation toward the subject of the book I had been reading, which dealt with quantum gravity, he backed away and had no comment other than he knew the author and the subject was "above his pay grade". The point being, in the first case there was a certainty of concept in his discussion and the second an admission that the change of focus was beyond his field of interest and expertise.

We all tend to present what we know and are interested in, with a certainty that is often beyond the bigger picture of the puzzle it fits into. In day to day discussions this does not lead to the kind of conflict that seems to almost always rise up, in this kind of discussion group. Listen to what people are saying and a little less to how it is said. Few if any of the posts here are proofed and/or intended for publication. We are just folks exchanging ideas and perspectives.

 

Hi OnlyMe. From your opening remark, I see that you misunderstood what I said. I was only addressing his claim "to know already". I humbly suggested that ad hoc assumptions and abstract modeling and interpretive constructs are not "knowing already". Sure, we have abstract ways of "describing", "modeling" and "interpreting" according to some theory or other, but these are "abstract interpretations of effects" and not actual "knowledge" insofar as actual knowledge of actual causes and mechanisms is concerned (as explained in my gravity example for what we surmise rather than explain as to cause and mechanism).

The rest of your post is ok for what you address, because we seem to be in agreement on that; but it's not what I was addressing in my post to Markus Hanke, so I won't comment further. Thanks for your polite response anyway, OnlyMe. Enjoy your discussions. Bye for now.

 

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.

 

You're just in love with bullshit. Your personal world view on modern physics is 2 rungs below bullshit. You write reams of bullshit nonsense that has nothing to do with science. You think the stuff you've wrote about in this forum is an alternative to modern science. It would be true if modern science was bullshit but it isn't.

 

Yes, I remember your approach to doing physics. Here's a pretty little picture of a unicorn :

http://www.elisabethhubert.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/unicorn.jpg

There ! I have drawn you a picture of a unicorn ! Why do you refuse to even look at the evidence I provided that unicorns exist ?

I'm the type of person who can distinguish real, physical, empirical evidence from ( possibly animated ) GIFs drawn by some guy on the Internet. That is something that a lot of people, including yourself, seem to be incapable of nowadays.

Good. That was pretty much the idea

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

I'm not an aether proponent, I'm a relativity proponent. You're the one rambling Markus, about "the illusion of motion" and other matters which are totally at odds with Einstein's general relativity. As I said, Einstein referred to space as an aether, and there are many papers on arXiv that refer to such. You have wilfully ignored this, and you are calling for censorship, so that you can peddle a misleading interpretation without challenge. Shame on you.

It's Einstein's. And once again:

1911: If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates co, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = co(1 + Φ/c²).

1912: On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential.

1913: I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis.

1915: the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned.

1916: In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).

The word he used was geschwindigkeit which translates to speed, he referred to c, and to one of the two fundamental assumptions. That's the special relativity postulate, which is the constant speed of light. And yes Markus, ignorance is always a personal choice. You can choose it for yourself, but please don't try to impose it on everybody else.