Heavy Science. Time Travel.

[Gambeir]

Actually TM (Thomas R. Morrison) is better at this than I am.

TM's image of a manifold:

My image of a manifold:

Relativity has been extremely resistant to challenges.

If you believe that GR has been challenged please specify where and how?

Yes, but the up side is you have a future in auto mechanics.

 

[spacecase0]

Relativity has been extremely resistant to challenges.

If you believe that GR has been challenged please specify where and how?

curious what you think of this
www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Preikschat-CriticalLookattheTheoryofRelativity.pdf

 

[CasualBystander]

curious what you think of this
www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Preikschat-CriticalLookattheTheoryofRelativity.pdf

Let's take the first one. Two spacecraft chasing another spacecraft.

Anyone who has been stopped by a cop (using a laser speed gun) or is familiar with red shift (astronomy) is a little aghast that someone would try this argument.

Once light is in free space it travels at C. Period. Light travels at the speed of light in the medium.

Let's take the case that the emitter is in a tube and tube is pointed backward with a sensor that measures frequency and speed.

The sensor would record speed of C and frequency of Fo.

An observer stationary (whatever that means) behind the space craft would record speed = C and Frequency F1 < F0.

The two space craft would record speed = C and F2 and F3 > F0.

If another result was possible - someone would have reported it.

A moving spacecraft is moving fast enough that atomic clocks could report a speed shift in light speed from interstellar objects. This can be proven (easily) with currently available equipment.

Until we get a report that light speed shifts depending on your velocity relative to the source we will have to assume Einstein is right.

The Michelson Morley experiment used two beams at right angles (one in the direction of the earths motion) and didn't get any interference fringes.

Haven't heard any reports that signals from outbound (or inbound spacecraft) travel at any speed other than C.

Part of the problem is your link ignores Lorenz contraction. Lorenz time dilation isn't the only effect. A ship traveling at the speed of light would look like a disk regardless of what its initial shape was.

The other issue is speed is measured as time vs distance. For anyone to measure "speed of light" they have to measure it at two points in their reference frame - and that is automatically C.

Not only that - but measuring the speed of light (in a moving spacecraft - and TM may comment on this) side to side should give the same result as back and forth.

Partly it is due to geometry. The real path of a side to side measurement:

In a moving spacecraft - measuring the distance light traveled - isn't the real distance light traveled.

 

[spacecase0]

Let's take the first one. Two spacecraft chasing another spacecraft.

Anyone who has been stopped by a cop (using a laser speed gun) or is familiar with red shift (astronomy) is a little aghast that someone would try this argument.

Once light is in free space it travels at C. Period. Light travels at the speed of light in the medium.

Let's take the case that the emitter is in a tube and tube is pointed backward with a sensor that measures frequency and speed.

The sensor would record speed of C and frequency of Fo.

An observer stationary (whatever that means) behind the space craft would record speed = C and Frequency F1 < F0.

The two space craft would record speed = C and F2 and F3 > F0.

If another result was possible - someone would have reported it.

A moving spacecraft is moving fast enough that atomic clocks could report a speed shift in light speed from interstellar objects. This can be proven (easily) with currently available equipment.

Until we get a report that light speed shifts depending on your velocity relative to the source we will have to assume Einstein is right.

The Michelson Morley experiment used two beams at right angles (one in the direction of the earths motion) and didn't get any interference fringes.

Haven't heard any reports that signals from outbound (or inbound spacecraft) travel at any speed other than C.

Part of the problem is your link ignores Lorenz contraction. Lorenz time dilation isn't the only effect. A ship traveling at the speed of light would look like a disk regardless of what its initial shape was.

The other issue is speed is measured as time vs distance. For anyone to measure "speed of light" they have to measure it at two points in their reference frame - and that is automatically C.

Not only that - but measuring the speed of light (in a moving spacecraft - and TM may comment on this) side to side should give the same result as back and forth.

Partly it is due to geometry. The real path of a side to side measurement:

In a moving spacecraft - measuring the distance light traveled - isn't the real distance light traveled.

as that paper points out, relativity will predict the same thing as far as signals recieved.
so, keep reading.

also, not sure if you have ever herd doppler form an orbiting craft, you usually need 3 frequencies in memory, one high, the middle one and one low. you need 3 because the if filter in the radio is to narrow to copy all the data with just one frequency.
the filters used are about the same as they were in the 1970s, and pretty sure they don't calibrate them to the onboard atomic clock.
doppler is not going to change the speed of light, and it is not going to change the data sent.
so not sure why you think we would have noticed any small change from theory with modern hardware.

 

[CasualBystander]

as that paper points out, relativity will predict the same thing as far as signals recieved.
so, keep reading.

also, not sure if you have ever herd doppler form an orbiting craft, you usually need 3 frequencies in memory, one high, the middle one and one low. you need 3 because the if filter in the radio is to narrow to copy all the data with just one frequency.
the filters used are about the same as they were in the 1970s, and pretty sure they don't calibrate them to the onboard atomic clock.
doppler is not going to change the speed of light, and it is not going to change the data sent.
so not sure why you think we would have noticed any small change from theory with modern hardware.

Einstein velocity addition
Relativistic Velocities

For spacecraft U and V approaching each other (note - the velocity of the other spacecraft is negative or they wouldn't be approaching):

The velocity (w) of the U spacecraft as measured by the V spacecraft is:

w = (u - v)/ (1 - uv/c2)

This is the measured speed of U in the V reference frame.

You can't ever measure a speed higher than C from one of two objects moving slower than light speed. For two objects at almost light speed - it is their combined speed divided by 2.

If this was wrong someone would have reported it by now.

I'll address doppler later.

 

[spacecase0]

Einstein velocity addition
Relativistic Velocities

For spacecraft U and V approaching each other (note - the velocity of the other spacecraft is negative or they wouldn't be approaching):

The velocity (w) of the U spacecraft as measured by the V spacecraft is:

w = (u - v)/ (1 - uv/c2)

This is the measured speed of U in the V reference frame.

You can't ever measure a speed higher than C from one of two objects moving slower than light speed. For two objects at almost light speed - it is their combined speed divided by 2.

If this was wrong someone would have reported it by now.

I'll address doppler later.

you do get that the 2 ideas of how reality works are going to agree on about almost everything ?,
it is the small places where they don't agree where there might be something new to find.
you might want to read the entire paper to get the reality it offers before trying to take it apart item at a time.
and I am sure it has errors in it. my hope is that it helps predict something that relativity dose not.
the ultimate failure of relativity is that we do not currently have gravity control, we can see things flying around that clearly have it.
and most believers in relativity are so far disconnected from it that they think it will take thousands of years to master gravity if it is possible at all.

if it takes thousands of years to do anything, you are likely the same as the monkey trying to type out a novel. and in my mind, that means it is time to learn something new, just for the sake of finishing the project a few thousand years early.
do you see what I am getting at ?

 

[Black Angus]

I don't know, I speculate that a lot of what we call Dark matter, Is really just the force of the big bang,
The universe is expanding, but we view the universe as if it should be slowing down in its expansion, not speeding up. Well, That would be the case that the expansion should be slowing down. If it wasn't for space-time and how it affects matter. The faster an object of mass moves the slower time passes for this thing. My assumption is The explosive force of the big bang happened much faster than light. We see the cosmic microwave background. That is the assumed edge of our universe. Or in my eyes. is The very first matter that was moving through space slowly enough to not be converted into pure energy. As the matter that's moving faster than light tends to usually break down.

In my imagination. Dark energy is like a current or the undertow of a wave in the ocean. The force of the big bang was so insane the explosion was actually faster than light. So Our expansion, the expansion of our universe. is at least in my theory is being pulled to accelerate from the force of the original explosion of the BB. basically, I'm saying the Vacuum effect. Dark matter is a negative force created by the force of the big bang explosion force, towing what matter managed to coalesce in it's wake.

My gut feeling, and its only that is that after the big bang the lions share of matter got flung far further out than we are, we are on the trailing edge of matter. That the vast bulk of matter has started to coalesce into super super massive back holes, and that they are dragging us out towards them (as opposed to being pushed away from the big bang) this would explain the speeding up aspect.

Eventually all matter will be drawn into this outer ring of super super massive black holes, which will in turn eat each other and eventually spawn another big bang.

Thats just my instinctive view. Its not science or fact

 

[Black Angus]

A way to imagine this would be to compare the universe to a watermelon, with the thicker denser green rind on the outside and the less dense pink stuff inside.
Now imagine the green rind is 5 times thicker than a normal watermelon.

Its very dense, and is exerting gravitational force that's pulling the pink stuff outwards towards its (as opposed to the pink stuff being pushed out from the center)

 

[CasualBystander]

you do get that the 2 ideas of how reality works are going to agree on about almost everything ?,
it is the small places where they don't agree where there might be something new to find.
you might want to read the entire paper to get the reality it offers before trying to take it apart item at a time.
and I am sure it has errors in it. my hope is that it helps predict something that relativity dose not.
the ultimate failure of relativity is that we do not currently have gravity control, we can see things flying around that clearly have it.
and most believers in relativity are so far disconnected from it that they think it will take thousands of years to master gravity if it is possible at all.

if it takes thousands of years to do anything, you are likely the same as the monkey trying to type out a novel. and in my mind, that means it is time to learn something new, just for the sake of finishing the project a few thousand years early.
do you see what I am getting at ?

There is a basic misunderstanding.

Gravity isn't a force. It is a distortion of space-time. A large mass creates a "low potential" area in space-time and things flow toward it.

The fabric of space is like a 3-dimensional rubber membrane - the reason you have gravity waves is a spot was pinched, stretched and allowed to snap back suddenly.

The reason that objects fall to the ground is they are following the curvature of space-time.

 

[spacecase0]

I think gravity is caused by a time field
the idea of space-time seems flawed to me
we know what space is and we know what time is,
so why mix them up in some inseparable way and make the math harder ?
it is like saying a flashlight converts electromagnetism to electromagnetism, although it is a correct way to say it, it is not very helpful.

 

[CasualBystander]

I think gravity is caused by a time field
the idea of space-time seems flawed to me
we know what space is and we know what time is,
so why mix them up in some inseparable way and make the math harder ?
it is like saying a flashlight converts electromagnetism to electromagnetism, although it is a correct way to say it, it is not very helpful.

We take photos of a galaxy about 13.4 billion light years away. The 13.4 billion years is the travel time. The galaxy was roughly 8 billion years away when the light left. The galaxy is now 32 billion light years away.

Now if we could visit the star instantaneously, we would have to travel 32 lightyears.

Further - lets look at a black hole. Matter falls into a black hole. How long does it take to get there?

Well... it doesn't.

By the time it smacks the event horizon like a bug on the windshield - time has stopped and it has been stretched almost to infinity in the perpendicular direction - IE it forms a shell around the black hole.

What really happens is the event horizon moves above it.

Russians call black holes "frozen stars" and view them like an onion.

Further - from the perspective of the bug - it smacks the window shield at nearly the speed of light.

 

[Black Angus]

The Stanford-based analysis group and NASA announced on 4 May 2011 that the data from GP-B indeed confirms the two predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.[33] The findings were published in the journal Physical Review Letters.[8] The prospects for further experimental measurement of frame-dragging after GP-B were commented on in the journal Europhysics Letters.[34]

Fifty years after it was conceived, a $760 million NASA spacecraft has confirmed Einstein's theory of gravity, or general relativity, physicists announced today. Gravity Probe B achieved measurements that agreed with theoretical predictions for two effects of general relativity, which states that gravity arises when mass bends space and time. "Einstein survives!" said Francis Everitt, a physicist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, who reported the results at a press conference at NASA headquarters in Washington, D.C.

The Gravity Probe B not only confirmed the earth's warping of space-time, also verified the existence of frame dragging. Since space-time can be viewed as a fabric, then a spinning body should drag some of this fabric along with it as it rotates. Again, this is a tiny effect, but it, too, was measured by Gravity Probe B.

In fact, you test Einstein's theory with your smart phone, which uses GPS to locate your position to great accuracy. Most people don't even think about or even care how the GPS works on the phone but if Einstein's theory were wrong, the GPS system would not work, and you would probably get lost. So next time you open the GPS or Navigation App on your smart phone... remember that Einstein was the person that helped make it possible for you to easily navigate half way around the city without getting lost.

Scientists Find Einstein's "Missing Inch"

You'll forgive me if i take Stanford and Kaku's opinion over yours

 

[Black Angus]

which states that gravity arises when mass bends space and time. "Einstein survives!

And we know it bends time

Time passes faster the higher you are

Scientists prove time really does pass quicker at a higher altitude | Daily Mail Online

The Higher You Are, the Faster You Age

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

Thank you for providing all those links to the empirical evidence of general relativity's amazing scientific predictions; everyone who wants to debate the merits or demerits of GR needs to first be aware of those findings and, ideally, understand their significance.

 

[CasualBystander]

There are some subjects, like the effects of relativity, and how things function at the planck length that operate in a way outside of human experience.

At normal distances and speeds the deviation is imperceptable so there is a temptation to extend analogs of normal experience.

But the results you get are wrong.

High precision work in some engineering areas (like the design of GPS systems) requires that these effects be understood correctly.

There is no straight line in space.

And the fabric of space we are embedded in is stretching as we speak.

 

[Gambeir]

" All non-metric theories of gravitation have been ruled out?"

We don't know that, we haven't the slightest idea what that even means Thomas. I'll bet there's maybe 5 or 6 people on this forum that have any idea what that means. You're provoking the responses that you are seeing as piled on attacks because you're making whole sale claims which are only based on theoretical constructs which are not understood and not even explained with any meaning at all!

I asked you to describe space, figuring you could do that in a meaningful way according to what this metric theory of space is, and so that you could give us an image of what this "Metric" is supposed to look like. I didn't get any meaningful answer so I will do it and you can correct or expand upon this. * Note, I'm giving you plenty of room here to correct/expand/ect.

Now, is it not the truth that in reality metric theories of space are factually nothing more than an arbitrary mathematical model describing space as an interconnected lattice of tetrahedron shape's? However, my question is then why would this be necessary: Why an interconnected lattice work of space in tetrahedron shapes?

So you see first you have describe metrics in a visual format so that people have that image in their mind. Then you have describe why it's is this image. The you have to explain the origins of this idea as being derived from geometry, and hence the reason for the word metric is that it is derived from a geometric description of space?

Now I'm sorry you have to do this because I know this isn't your fault specifically. This is the fault of idiots destroying meaning with the English Language with Gibbonics, or monkey speak, because it's not metrics is it? It's the geometry of space that's being assigned a mathematical model, and so why is that necessary; so that we can possibly predict behavior of energy in space and so forth right? All good and fine, but now how in holy hell did it end up being a fricking tetrahedron shape? That's something I'd like to know. Is it because space is primarily composed of hydrogen and helium?

I don't know why it's so difficult for science idiots to grasp simple communication concepts but they do have a hell of time trying to explain things so that ordinary people can understand what in the hell they are blathering about.

Which by the way, you know how much freaking time and energy it took me to just get enough understanding of what space metrics was so that I myself could visualize it, and just so that I could then give a description of what this jabbering monkey speak was all about? Metric of space?

What the hell is so damn hard that any science major can't describe space metrics in a visual format? Christ it's like trying to break the Japanese Purple Code or some shit. Only to find that these assholes have been describing the geometry of space using half the descriptive linguistics normally associated the meaning of the word geometric, and evidently figuring that as a mathematical model of space it made economical sense to rob half the letters of the descriptive meaning of geometric, figuring in some perverted concept that this then somehow implied it was mathematical!

Contemporary science has only it's self to blame for the back lash it's getting. Nobody want's to waste time and that's what this shit is: It's time wasting by a bunch of idiots who have been free wheeling with creative linguistics and inventing words to describe what's already conventionally understood as something completely un~associated. I think that to most people if you said metrics they would think of a measuring stick, like say a yard stick or a metric meter, and probably not of a mathematical model of a geometric form, which btw is not even mentioned what it hell that might be: A complete mystery needlessly created by idiot savants who have no business creating new words, let alone evidently trying to explain what these words supposedly refer to. Now I don't know about anyone else but that's not my idea of precision which I think is a goal of science generally speaking.

Don't challenge me on this because I'll just bet that if I pull out my 1970 or 1936 dictionary that's over a foot thick there's not a mention of the word metric except as a form of measure.


So now that we have finally understood that the metrics of space is a mathematical model a damned tetrahedron, which isn't yet explained, we can move to why it is so is due to Quantum Theory, and in which it says that this now defined geometry of space is seeded with oscillating mass~less Higgs particles, oscillating along a chiral tetrahedral vacuum lattice, and oh yes, BTW, this lattice is made up of tetrahedron shapes. Chiral we can get in to latter as yet more nonsensical invented hyper~crank head science speak.

Further, according to this quasi~science of so called quantum physics, this then explains gravity by means of the ability to transfer Photon and Graviton information in bunches of oscillations, and which move through the vacuum lattice with the local (mass related) speed of light. How, precisely this explains gravity I have not yet determined myself, but assume it has something to do with dissymmetry of movement.

 

[Gambeir]

There are some subjects, like the effects of relativity, and how things function at the planck length that operate in a way outside of human experience.

At normal distances and speeds the deviation is imperceptable so there is a temptation to extend analogs of normal experience.

But the results you get are wrong.

High precision work in some engineering areas (like the design of GPS systems) requires that these effects be understood correctly.

There is no straight line in space.

And the fabric of space we are embedded in is stretching as we speak.

You mean like Pinochioo's nose?

We don't know that at all Bystander. These ideas about an expanding universe have counter posing ones. Let's not speak of things which are in reality hypothetical as if they were facts, and instead put them in relative terms: That is to say couch what you say by hedging your ideas when possible with statements saying for example one of the prevailing ideas is X, Y, or Z because group consensus does not constitute fact, or truth, or justice.

Minority views have a wisdom and right all their own and that idea is represented in the unity of the United States through the electoral college in national voting because otherwise we would all be ruled by what California and New York think is sensible, and we all know how insane that would be right?

Maybe the Univese is expanding and maybe it's not. I hardly think anyone on this mud ball could really pretend to have any real knowledge about such a vastness.

 

[Shadowprophet]

Simulation hypothesis is something a great many people speak about with skepticism or even dread. To simplify I could paste a few google scholar links. But to be honest. It's somewhat unnecessary. Anyone of us can look up the Simulation Hypothesis. Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia,

After researching simulation Hypothesis as deeply as I'm able to grasp it. It seems that in Reality as we know it, for matter to behave the way it does in Quantum mechanics, That Quantum physicists, At least the ones who sing the song of the Simulation Hypothesis, Believe that matter Is being projected onto A Great Gravitational Horizon, By the Higgs field.

Some people View this hypothesis with great dread. But Even if this were the case. Would it even matter? How does matter being a product of a Higgs field Quantum system with gravity in any way change our reality? Would not a beer still taste like a beer? Do we still not have our own consciousness? I think if Simulation Hypothesis were proven. It would change very little but our understanding of matter.

We spoke of Light. And How Gravity and time can bend light. But. There are other ways to bend light. in 2010, Physicists were able to create the First holographic Photon, which was until that point considered physically impossible. https://phys.org/news/2010-01-tying.html Yet. Not only were they able to create it, They were able to actually tie the photon into knots using holographic tools.

I pose this Question, To anyone, What are some of the natural or even unlikely phenomena that could also interact with Spacetime? Is Gravity the only force in the universe that can Manipulate time? Could there be other forces?

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

Actually TM (Thomas R. Morrison) is better at this than I am.

TM's image of a manifold:

My image of a manifold:

Relativity has been extremely resistant to challenges.

If you believe that GR has been challenged please specify where and how?

Haha - thanks for the chuckle CasualBystander; it's nice to find some good humor here to lighten up the day =)

I'm still too busy to dive into the many posts that I'd like to respond to in this thread, but hopeful I'll have some time coming up soon - this is a really fun topic to discuss and debate ;

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

We don't know that, we haven't the slightest idea what that even means Thomas. I'll bet there's maybe 5 or 6 people on this forum that have any idea what that means. You're provoking the responses that you are seeing as piled on attacks because you're making whole sale claims which are only based on theoretical constructs which are not understood and not even explained with any meaning at all!

I asked you to describe space, figuring you could do that in a meaningful way according to what this metric theory of space is, and so that you could give us an image of what this "Metric" is supposed to look like. I didn't get any meaningful answer so I will do it and you can correct or expand upon this. * Note, I'm giving you plenty of room here to correct/expand/ect.

Now, is it not the truth that in reality metric theories of space are factually nothing more than an arbitrary mathematical model describing space as an interconnected lattice of tetrahedron shape's? However, my question is then why would this be necessary: Why an interconnected lattice work of space in tetrahedron shapes?

Man, you're really cursing up a storm in this post Gambeir - chill out buddy, we're only debating physics here, not something really nasty like American politics.

Sorry about the terminology but when you read a bunch of academic papers all the time, the nomenclature becomes habitual because that's how physicists most readily specify what they're talking about. The term "metric curvature" is used to refer to the spacetime metric which is "flat" (i.e., Euclidean, with space and time at right angles to each other) in the absence of matter, and curved in the presence of matter (or energy, that works too because they're equivalent). Physicists say "metric" because relativity is generalized: it doesn't matter what kind of geometry you're using, as long as the angle between space and time is correct for any given situation. Sometimes using the polar coordinate system is most efficacious for studying a given scenario, for example, but the choice of coordinate system is arbitrary.

I don't know where you got this tetrahedral idea; there is no preferred geometric description of spacetime. Any coordinate system will do just fine as long as it's self-consistent and it obeys the correct space and time deformations when calculating relative velocities and gravitational fields. It's good to bear this in mind when thinking about relativity, because it's not a theory of spacetime structure, it's a theory (or rather, theories) of spacetime geometry, and any convenient and applicable geometry will do.

Maybe the Univese is expanding and maybe it's not. I hardly think anyone on this mud ball could really pretend to have any real knowledge about such a vastness.

No it's definitely expanding - if it weren't expanding, then we'd need a new and logical explanation for the cosmological redshift that we observe, and frankly nobody sees any theoretical or observational motivation to come up with an alternative explanation because the Hubble expansion looks 100% legit.

We only know of two physical mechanisms for redshift: receding velocities, and gravitational redshift. And since it makes no sense that galaxies of the same size would have stronger gravitational fields at greater distances (and no corollary gravitational lensing effects are observed), then it has to be a receding velocity causing the redshifting, which is greater at greater distances, i.e., the universe is expanding, and the rate of recession is greater as the distance is greater.

I skipped a bunch of posts but I'll have to get back to them when I have more time.

Meanwhile - Gambeir and spacecase0, you guys really need to become acquainted with this excellent review paper; it will answer all of your questions about the experimental and theoretical status of general relativity, and it specifically explains why we're so confident that curved spacetime models are the only possible answer to the observations we've made over the past century:

“The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment,” Clifford M. Will, 2014
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.7377.pdf


We did a podcast about this paper here, if you'd rather listen than read about it:

Post-Newtonian Gravitation | Free Podcasts | PodOmatic"