General Relativity and Time

[paddoboy]

Wellwisher, either we are both cranks, or else you are really catching on. Don't stop thinking about it that way. I can't even imagine the universe any other way now.

You certainly have explained it in less than gobblydook terminology.
I can now comment that such a scenario would be like a fly hitting a train head on, and claiming the train momentarily stops along with the fly.
At best the effects are infinitesimally insignificant.
Typical wellwisher gobblydook as I said.

 

[paddoboy]

Why do you think the singularity is beyond us Paddo? There should be a reasonable answer that makes sense, but I think once it emerges it will.

Because at this stage it is beyond us and our models.
That may not always be so though.
Until then, we can though speculate.

 

[BrianHarwarespecialist]

Because at this stage it is beyond us and our models.
That may not always be so though.
Until then, we can though speculate.

Paddo did you ever ask yourself why we have the ability to speculate or why we even bother and seem to do so more than other species?

Don't you wonder why you have memories and even some people photographic ones?

 

[danshawen]

can now comment that such a scenario would be like a fly hitting a train head on, and claiming the train momentarily stops along with the fly.

Now that really is gobbledegook and nonsense.

Nowhere in the thought experiments of Wellwisher or the one I cleaned up is there ever even a reference to an "instant" of time, such as a train hitting a fly. You can't even analyze anything in that way without actually violating conservation of energy. Stick with intervals of time if you wish to make any sense of physical reality. Instants of time only exist in quantum fields. A train hitting a fly is a delta t impulse, not a time instant of no duration t. It takes time even for a squashed fly (0r train) to slow down just a little with respect to each other.

In fact, the equivalent of the dribbling basketball scenario has been completely tested experimentally. My former Mentor Carroll O. Alley did it with planes and 1960s era atomic clocks first. No surprise, Special Relativity won.

"Sometimes you're the windshield. Sometimes you're the bug." - Bonnie Rait.

 

[paddoboy]

The stationary observer is going to remark something like: "Gee, that basketball sure bounces slowly!" Someone watching the monitor trained on the stationary observer from the moving spaceship would remark: "How can he move to control the basketball robot that quickly?"
That isn't nonsense; it's real science.

yes, it is time dilation, and nothing that I recognise familiar to what wellwisher asked.
Time dilation certainly is a well evidenced and supported scientific effect that was realised with SR.

 

[paddoboy]

Paddo did you ever ask yourself why we have the ability to speculate or why we even bother and seem to do so more than other species?

Nothing wrong with speculation and speculative scenarios. I do it myself. The trick is not to fall into the trap that some of our more prominent alternative hypothesis pushers do and confuse the speculative stuff with scientific theory or fact.

 

[BrianHarwarespecialist]

 

[James R]

wellwisher:

You are using scientific-sounding terms in an idiosyncratic way such that it is not clear what you are actually talking about. There seems to be little reference to actual general relativity in your posts to this thread.

Say we start with a point of space; singularity, and keep adding mass, space-time will appear and will continue to contract due to GR, with each addition of mass.

What does it mean for spacetime to contract?

In this example, space-time reference is directly related to only mass, since distance=0 and time is not important at the level of GR.

What is "space-time reference"?

Why is distance=0?

GR is a theory of spacetime. Saying that time is not important is inane. Time is treated in GR on an equal footing with the spatial coordinates.

The most logical explanation for how pure mass can define time in space-time is mass contains potential in time, that defines the time reference within space-time.

What kind of "potential" are you talking about? How is it defined?

And again, you need to explain what a "time reference within space-time" is, exactly. That is not a standard term in relativity.

The time potential within mass can be explained as being connected to the in situ motion of the sub particles within matter composites like protons. These in situ sub particles, move close to the speed of light and will therefore exist in highly time dilated references.

Every particle exists in all reference frames, always.

Since you consistently talk about particles or objects as if they exist in only one reference frame, I can only assume that you don't know what a reference frame is. Getting that straight at the start is fundamentally important if you're going to talk about relativity.

This in situ time dilation, within the composite, creates a reference in reference effect. Space-time is the external or dependent reference, while the in situ reference defines an internal reference that is the independent reference. In the case of mass interaction; gravity, the in situ reference is the primary interaction of all mass, but we measure the impact from a dependent space-time reference, because of atomic composites; tradition. This tradition came before we could prove the details of the sub structure.

This is meaningless waffle.

As a thought experiment, say you had two space-time references, side by side, with one reference stationary and the other reference given sufficient energy so it can move near the speed of light.

A reference frame has no energy and can move however fast you want it to move (up to the speed of light).

The moving reference will show time dilation, with the clocks in that reference running slower. This is basic SR.

I don't think you understand that time dilation is an effect that involves two reference frames, not one.

Next, say you could put your hand into the slow reference, with you hand somehow retaining your stationary reference (hypothetical for illustration).

Your hand always exists in both reference frames, and in many others too.

This is illustration of reference in reference. What you will try to do is dribble a basketball in the slowed reference, from your faster stationary reference; hand is part of fast reference. Because time is running slower in the other reference, and the laws of physics are the same in both references, if you tried to dribble the ball normally for your reference, the other reference ball will not accelerate properly from your hand, as expected in your reference, because it is moving slower in time.

Changing your frame of reference can't alter the physics of what happens. What happens happens. Events in spacetime are fixed points. You speak as if the basketball and the hand are in separate, single reference frames. In fact, both the ball and the hand are in all frames.

Because time is running slower, the needed acceleration/force, to get a normal looking dribble affect, in your reference, will need to change magnitude. You will need to increase the amount of pushing force, beyond what your reference would need, to make it move as fast expected in your reference, to compensate for time lag.

Just to emphasize: changing frame of reference cannot alter the physics. That's the whole point of GR.

You should stop pretending to know GR and actually learn something about it.

Your posts on this, like many of your posts ostensibly about scientific matters, sound a bit like you know what you're talking about to the uninitiated, and that's not good when you talk such rubbish. Please stop cluttering up the science sections with nonsense.

 

[wellwisher]

The reference in reference effect might be easier to see with another example. If you ever watched the movie, The Matrix, in several scenes, Neo is dodging bullets. In these slow motion scenes, his body is in a faster reference, with the time running slower in the Matrix. The bullets appear to be moving slower in time, allowing him to dodge the bullets easily.

In terms of space-time reference and the in situ reference of the sub particles, the sub particles are analogous to the matrix and space-time is analogous to Neo's faster reference. Neo's body, through the programming of the matrix, enters a more expanded space-time reference, where time moves faster. He is still in the matrix, since things in the matrix can still harm him, slowed or not; reference in reference.

The bullets appear to be moving slower, therefore easy to dodge, but since the laws of physics are the same in all references, their slower movement does not take away their inertia, even in Neo's reference, since he can be killed by these slow bullets. This is connected to time leveraging of space-time by the slow reference, space-time plus time = space/time/time or acceleration. This is just another way of saying the same thing as traditional, but using a reference in reference foundation.

 

[wellwisher]

If needed, I will return to reference in reference, but for now, I would like to explain how reference in reference is consistent with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as well as how space and time become integrated as space-time.

A good visual analogy is connected to a phenomena in photography that is called motion blur. This is where the shutter speed of the camera is slower than the action speed of the subject in the picture. With time stopped; still picture, but distance conserved in the photo (we still see correct size and position), the difference in speed, between these two references, with time stopped, appears as uncertainty in distance; creates motion blur or distance blur. The motion blur gives the impression of motion in the photo, with time stopped.

When we measure motion, such as the electron moving around an atomic nucleus, we measure the motion in terms of its position in space and time. Space-time reference is analogous to the shutter speed of the camera. The motion of the subject; sub-particle interaction, is from the POV of the in situ reference. The difference in speed, with time stopped, is creating motion blur; uncertainty in position and momentum; see above.

The stopping of time, needed for the motion blur effect; uncertainty in distance, is connected, to our quantum universe. A quantum universe even creates discontinuities in time. These pauses in time create the still shots that lead to the motion blur and uncertainty; time potential to distance potential conversion.

The phenomena we call mass is due to in situ motion of the sub particles within mass, which creates a highly time dilated reference, that exist apart from space-time reference. The reference in reference effect, between in situ and space-time, creates motion blur and uncertainty in distance. Our quantum universe, creates on and off time effect, alternating between on time; time potential, and off-time; uncertainty in distance; distance potential, to create an integrated space-time reference. An analogy is the still frames in a movie, with gaps in time, that creates what appears to be continuous action in space-time.

In my opinion, the on-off of time implicit of time quanta, reflected as uncertainty; motion blur, is connected to the equivalence of mass/energy. As the sub particles move between mass and energy states, since energy moves at C, time in space-time becomes discontinuous; time to distance potential. When energy returns to mass time potentials appears for time in space-time. This switches quickly so space-time reference appears united.

 

[wellwisher]

The problem I have with this theory being labelled pseudo science, is naming calling appears to be considered acceptable posting in the physics forums. Name calling and bickering is never banished to alternative theory, but remains posted like this is considered valid science by the staff. Name calling should need proof of claim but does not. Who is in charge of these criteria?

I am offering a way to stimulate the mind, but acceptable science is now about the skills of name calling. In the old days, the staff was more advanced and was able to deal with academic exercises and did not consider name calling a form of acceptable science that stays posted as part of what is called science.

 

[James R]

The reference in reference effect might be easier to see with another example. If you ever watched the movie, The Matrix, in several scenes, Neo is dodging bullets. In these slow motion scenes, his body is in a faster reference, with the time running slower in the Matrix. The bullets appear to be moving slower in time, allowing him to dodge the bullets easily.

The Matrix is fantasy. Neo dodging bullets has nothing to do with the theory of relativity. Even in the movie he is in a simulation where the usual laws of physics don't have to apply.

The bullets appear to be moving slower, therefore easy to dodge, but since the laws of physics are the same in all references, their slower movement does not take away their inertia, even in Neo's reference, since he can be killed by these slow bullets. This is connected to time leveraging of space-time by the slow reference, space-time plus time = space/time/time or acceleration. This is just another way of saying the same thing as traditional, but using a reference in reference foundation.

No, it's really not another way of saying the same thing as traditional. What you have written is essentially meaningless.

Oh, and motion blur has nothing to do with the speed of reference frames, either. You really ought to find out what a reference frame is.

 

[wellwisher]

The Matrix is fantasy. Neo dodging bullets has nothing to do with the theory of relativity. Even in the movie he is in a simulation where the usual laws of physics don't have to apply.


No, it's really not another way of saying the same thing as traditional. What you have written is essentially meaningless.

Oh, and motion blur has nothing to do with the speed of reference frames, either. You really ought to find out what a reference frame is.

How does existing theory explain the basis for Heisenberg uncertainty?

Motion blue implies a reference in reference effect. The shutter speed of the camera and the action speed can be different since any scene can have action of many speeds. The camera is creating a reference that is not the same as the action. Since time is stopped and distance is conserved, in the still photo, the difference in speed d/t with t=0, appears as uncertainty in the active variable; distance; motion blur. The Heisenberg Uncertainty is an artifact of reference in reference. Again, how do the traditions explain it and how do they use this explanation to interface the rest of the theory?

As far a Neo and the Matrix, since Neo is moving faster than the bullets, he is in an expanded space-time reference. In terms of the reference in reference he is analogy to space-time. The bullets are in the in situ reference; Matrix, of the reference in reference effect.

The Matrix is fantasy, because in this case Neo, to speed up reference, would need to expand space-time around himself, with a negative GR effect, so his mass-distance gets smaller so time can speed up. This allows him to move faster, since his lowered effective mass, creates less inertia and therefore less resistant to quick changes of position.

Another way to look at Neo, is based on Heisenberg Uncertainty. Neo is the shutter speed and the bullets are the action speed. With these not the same, with time being quantum stopped; the bullets have uncertainty in position, so they don't always hit him. There is also uncertainty in momentum, so although they hit him, death is not certain. This is the last stage when it learns to fully use the matrix reference in reference effect.

 

[Daecon]

No. Just... no.

Go away and learn how to science.

 

[origin]

Again, how do the traditions explain it and how do they use this explanation to interface the rest of the theory?

The fact that you think science is based on traditions means that your understanding of science is on par with individuals that lived before the bronze age, so any meaningful discussion is impossible.

 

[origin]

Glad to see this was moved to the proper section.

 

[wellwisher]

The fact that you think science is based on traditions means that your understanding of science is on par with individuals that lived before the bronze age, so any meaningful discussion is impossible.

How come nobody has attempted to answer the question of why Heisenberg Uncertainty? We know uncertainty will happen, but doesn't a lack of an explanation for why, means loose ends and unsubstantiated assumptions one has to accept with faith?

If you go back to Newtonian gravity, gravitational force is proportional to mass M and inversely proportional to distance R. Notice time was not important in Newtonian gravity, only mass geometry. Einstein improved on Newton, equating gravity to space-time, with his relationship also not time dependent, even though the time in space-time changes. It does not matter how the final mass geometry forms in time, which can impact forces needed to alter the inertia of the mass. It is only the steady state mass geometry that impacts space-time.

This is first basic point I made. It appears those who claim to know physics and GR are unaware of this basic observation. It implies space-time is a dependent variable in GR, based on mass and distance, but not time. I get the impression those who like to criticize are like someone singing a foreign national anthem, properly, but who do not know what the words mean. I am speaking in that language but they don't understand.

I will ask again why uncertainty since it is observed to occur? My answer is reference in reference effects.

 

[Daecon]

Or maybe you're wrong.

 

[origin]

I will ask again why uncertainty since it is observed to occur? My answer is reference in reference effects.

Why does the uncertainty principle occur? Because it does. It is like asking why does a positive charge attract a negative charge? Because it does. Why does a mass attract another mass, or if you like why does mass warp space? Because it does.
Your 'answer' is not an answer at all, it is little more than a small side word salad. You have already shown that you do not really understand what a reference frame is or how they relate when you have said things along the lines of if 2 rocket ships collide you can tell which one is 'really' moving and which one is not.

 

[wellwisher]

Why does the uncertainty principle occur? Because it does. It is like asking why does a positive charge attract a negative charge? Because it does. Why does a mass attract another mass, or if you like why does mass warp space? Because it does.
Your 'answer' is not an answer at all, it is little more than a small side word salad. You have already shown that you do not really understand what a reference frame is or how they relate when you have said things along the lines of if 2 rocket ships collide you can tell which one is 'really' moving and which one is not.

So you are saying the existing traditions don't know why we have Heisenberg Uncertainty? This is troubling since it implies a soft under belly of the traditions. Are you saying the entire brain trust of physics hasn't figured this out yet? This may explain the need to avoid this discussion.

The effect in photography, call motion blur, is the closest analogy of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. In motion blur the shutter speed of the camera is slower than the motion speed of the action. With time stop in the photo, point in time observation, the difference in speed delta (d/t) with t stopped, is conserved, and appears as uncertainty in distance; blur.

This is an artifact of reference in reference; camera and action. In the case of Heinsberg, we as humans are part of space-time, but the action reference is connected to the in situ sub particle reference, from which inertia and mass appear.

Below is motion blur. We know the position of the girl on the left, with the red dress, but we can't tell her momentum. While the gal on the right in blue, we can't determine her position due to uncertainty in distance, but we can sense momentum. Time is stopped yet we sense motion.