Isn't time a measurement of motion?

[sjastro]

They apply equally as well in the stationary and moving twins frame...

Are you now claiming the moving twin or stationary twin observe different laws of physics????


Why? You don't really want to discuss Doppler shift which is a wave moving through a medium....


Because you ignore that Doppler is actually a wave moving in a medium. Need I explain energy transfer if coming towards an object or away from an object?

Shall we look up Doppler shift and find how the only explanation they have is sound waves moving through a medium, then watch them scramble to say light is just like that except no medium??????

You believe in an ether theory that has been debunked since the early 20th century by every interferometer test performed over 100 years with the exception of Miller’s test in the 1920s where the experiment was found to be flawed.
What is laughable are your constant references to SR to “refute” arguments, yet SR postulates that no ether or medium is required for the propagation of light.
Frankly I have lost count of the number of times you have put your foot in your mouth with the contradictions.

I’m calling your bluff on being able to explain to me how Doppler shift in a medium relates to “energy transfer if coming towards an object or away from an object.”
Since sound waves do require air as a medium, explain the Doppler shift of a sound wave as an energy transfer with air using physics and maths.
I expect this to end up like all your other grandiose claims, where you chicken out and look plain silly.

What time translation? If you want time translations then why are you not translating time as you go backwards in time????? Ahhh, because now you need your clock rate to be constant so you can claim decay rate is constant??????

I'm sensing a conflicted argument coming on here by you.....

You are making up rubbish on a subject matter that is way beyond your comprehension.
You can translate time forwards or backwards if you like, if the Lagrangian remains constant, energy is conserved.
I might as well be talking in a foreign language………………..

Sigh, because you keep ignoring Doppler is a shift of waves traveling through a medium.....

You know, all that "matter" you keep pretending isn't there....


NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

http://www.sciencedaily.com/rele...

http://www.space.com/5348-view-u...

Ulysses (spacecraft)

"Ulysses discovered that dust coming into the Solar System from deep space was 30 times more abundant than previously expected."

And the light waves have traveled through..... imparting energy or gaining it.....


This from the guy who's only explanation of Doppler is sound waves moving through a medium imparting or gaining energy from that medium, then claiming we'll ignore all the matter light travels through because i need an argument.....


Ever seen energy be destroyed? Minus your confused conception of Doppler which is a wave traveling through a medium of course. Oh that's right, you need to believe the laws can be violated to postulate your Doppler shift which isnt a Doppler shift but instead caused by expansion of space through magical energy creation. My bad.....

The moving ball shows your flawed thinking in absolute frames. the ball sees no gain or loss of energy for itself... For someone that claims to believe everything is relative you sure have a tendency to try to argue this is an absolute frame.....

I’ll ignore the usual Gish Gallop nonsense, false attribution fallacies and straight out lying and note with your continuous references to Doppler shift and mediums, you had better explain how the Doppler shift of a sound wave is an energy transfer with air.

Yes, I know, in your world motion magically happens without acceleration.....


Ecept we both know thay are not constant, that is why orbits are calculated as accelerations... Or did you have another strawman to argue??/


If you say so....

Earth Orbits

Apparently you didn't understand Einstein when he told you gravity was the same as an acceleration......



You continue to be confused as to WHY the accelerometer reads zero... Although technically it reads 9.8 meters per second per second here on the earth's surface...

An object accelerating at 9.8 meters per second per second in free fall would read zero despite its acceleration of 9.8 meters per second per second.

Oh, one built for earth's gravity at least....

But there you go again. Thinking of this earth as an absolute frame and not understanding the results in micro-gravity. According to you "Free-falling" (accelerating at fractions of c) in step with your expansion so that it has no velocity relative to the expansion.....

Ooops, did you forget that????

So we would read none due to our acceleration through space, just the constant 9.8 meters per second per second acceleration here on earth due to gravity.....

Need I remind you of your belief that everything looks the same from any point in space. So that if on a far galaxy, we would have a redshift equaling fractions of c.....

Or is this the part where you claim physics works differently in different parts of the universe while arguing against Dad when he says the same thing?????

Here in a nutshell is why you are completely out of your depth as is your selection of “supportive” links which always turn out to being embarrassingly anything but supportive.
How is the link of a satellite orbit around the Earth in any way relevant with the Earth’s tangential acceleration in space which is the issue here?
Since the physics of satellite orbits and the Earth orbit around the Sun are the same, the link refers to centripedal acceleration which acts radially towards the central mass of the orbit.
Tangential acceleration is perpendicular to the centripedal acceleration.
Even then you should be able to understand the Earth is moving in space tangentially to the orbit, not in the direction of the centripetal or gravitational force otherwise we would literally be toast.
Equally absurd is confusing the acceleration of an object in the Earth’s gravitational field with the tangential acceleration of the Earth in space.

On top of your inability to understand that velocity and acceleration are different, the use of links and references where you clearly have zero comprehension in terms of their relevance in defending your pet theory, while at the same time giving me a lecture on your superior understanding of physics is classic D-K behaviour and pure comedy.

Nothing has changed; the accelerometer reads zero as the tangential acceleration is zero or too small to detect while your pet theory is further confirmed to be complete nonsense.

I'm not on the loosing end. You just keep hiding behind your conflicting arguments and wont let yourself see them for what they are..... And when you can't hide any more you start claiming physics never observed in any laboratory, but only way-out-that-a-way, while refusing to see it is Dad's argument in a nutshell which you fervently object to... Lol, loosing, Lol.....

The term is “losing” not “loosing”.
You can’t even get your insults right without it blowing up in your face.

Yah, it's usually the ones that start it that end up not being able to take the return heat.....

But I forgive you and glad you learned something at least!!!!

Since you are so aggrieved with what was a moderator decision take it up with them.

Let me remind you of your assignment, explain using physics and maths how a Doppler shifted sound wave is the result of exchanging energy with air.
Don’t bother wasting my time with further nonsense on justifying your pet theory, Gish Gallop nonsense and personal attacks, which won’t be responded to, just answer the question.

 

[SelfSim]

... I’ve no problem discussing the metaphysical as long as we all understand we are discussing the metaphysical and nothing that could be construed as science.....

One has to understand the box (the science) before one can think outside of it (or beyond it).
Your demonstrations of that remain totally unconvincing.
It seems the effects of totalitarianism, in its aim of constraining thinking, also impair perceptions of reality.
Vigilance, listening and 'trying on' what others have to say, are key.

 

[dad]

Physical Laws and physical constants are human constructs that consistently describe what humans observe ..

Too bad we did not observe any such things in Noah's day.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

One has to understand the box (the science) before one can think outside of it (or beyond it).
Your demonstrations of that remain totally unconvincing.
It seems the effects of totalitarianism, in its aim of constraining thinking, also impair perceptions of reality.
Vigilance, listening and 'trying on' what others have to say, are key.

Says the guy that only preaches what those in the box tell him to think....

You are not convincing at all, due to the fact that your views are totalitarian and anyone not in line with them, even if they are the ones thinking out of the box, are always wrong. Just because it is not what you believe....

I could understand if you had actual laboratory evidence, but to claim never before tested physics that only happen outside of our fishbowl, while actual tested physics observed in our fishbowl fit even better..... making our fishbowl the entire universe instead of just a tiny portion thereof as you and Dad would have it....

The difference is when I think outside the box, i still keep in mind the laws of physics discovered in the box, and simply apply them outside, not conjure up just enough magical Fairie Dust to make my math work out...

What is really surprising is you all keep claiming to believe in Relativity and then throw it in the trash can. Knowing it is 99.8% correct right here in the solar system without any Fairie Dust at all - applied to non-ionized matter. but the second you go outside the solar system and attempt to apply it to a universe 99.9% plasma, suddenly it doesn't work anymore. But instead of using the physics for the correct state of matter, you try to sledgehammer it to work anyways, the result you end up needing 95% unknown, untestable Fairie Dust added to make it fit a semblance of reality.

And despite having to correct an already 99.8% correct theory by another 95%, you still claim to believe in the theory you just trashed by not accepting what it is telling you.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Too bad we did not observe any such things in Noah's day.

Hey Dad, notice they are now arguing with you, by claiming never before seen physics in any laboratory operates outside of our fishbowl which they have defined as our galactic cluster..... outside of that physics operates completely different than it does here, but weren't they just arguing the same physics apply everywhere when you tried to argue that????

 

[dad]

Hey Dad, notice they are now arguing with you, by claiming never before seen physics in any laboratory operates outside of our fishbowl which they have defined as our galactic cluster..... outside of that physics operates completely different than it does here, but weren't they just arguing the same physics apply everywhere when you tried to argue that????

I didn't see much of an argument. Only blind faith and fishbowl projections with a godless slant.

 

[sjastro]

No, what's laughable is I am in the best of company.....

Einstein: "Ether and Relativity"

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

The only ones in violation of the reality are the ones trying to apply the idea of motion to it, of bending, expanding and accelerating.......

Another one that cant comprehend the reality of the flawed conception of the Michelson-Morely test....

Not that you'll be able to understand with your continuing to treat your frame as an absolute frame... but....

It was concluded there was no aether because of an incorrect belief in what the Michelson-Morley experiment showed. The only thing it actually showed was how easily people are fooled by incorrect conceptions. How they (and people still) failed to see that their viewpoint from outside the system being measured was flawed from the beginning.

The Michelson-Morley experiment is the biggest overlooked conceptual error of all time.

You, the observer looking at the illustration or device, are outside the illustration or device, and the illustration or device is moving with regard to you.

Feynman said: “Let us calculate the time required for the light to go to E and back. Let us say that the time for light to go from plate B to the mirror E is t1 and the time for the return is t2. While the light is on its way from B to the mirror [E], the apparatus moves a distance ut1, so light must traverse a distance of L+ut1 at the speed of c.”

Well, from your eyeballs’ point of view, looking at the illustration or device, yes. But from the point of view of the device, no. We conceptionally see the device moving, and therefore we see the extra distance ut1. But the device does not see itself moving. It has no velocity relative to itself. No object can calculate itself as moving in its own co-ordinate system. Any observer attached to the device or moving along with the device will see or measure the distance L. Period. Only an observer outside the local system would see the distance L+ut1. The device is inside its local system. The device cannot hope to measure any extra distance, or to find a phase difference at the end.

The entire experiment is founded on a conceptual error of the greatest import. The device is not moving relative to itself. There can be no phase shift because the device will never measure any distance but that of L. It will never measure the extra distance of ut1. No phase shift could ever be produced.

No system sees itself in motion. Only an outside observer would ever see the extra distance of ut1.

Just as if we built the device on the surface of the earth and spun the earth (oh wait, we already have) only an outside observer (off planet) would see the extra distance light must travel [ut1], while we (moving with the device) see it as stationary. The outside observer would expect a phase shift, while we on the earth would not. The experiment would measure the distance L and no phase shift would occurr to the astonishment of the outside observer.

The Michelson-Morley experiment is nothing but a conceptual error of profound proportions. So there has been no experiment that has shown the aether does not exist, but one of profound conceptual mistakes. So there was never any valid reason to begin with to conclude no aether existed. Just the incorrect conceptual errors of close to 130 years.

Now as for clocks on airplanes they merely confirm it is changes in velocity which affect clocks, not magical frame switching as is used in a sad attempt to explain why the twin’s clock slows….. but that so-called paradox is another profound conceptual error in a league of its own….


You mean your rubbish?

Doppler effect - Wikipedia

First let's understand that velocity has no affect on the speed of light, then let's understand what really happens.

"For waves that propagate in a medium, such as sound waves, the velocity of the observer and of the source are relative to the medium in which the waves are transmitted. The total Doppler effect may therefore result from motion of the source, motion of the observer, or motion of the medium."

Now Einstein already told you that Relativity is unthinkable without an ether, just that the idea of motion may not be applied to it, which you violate constantly..... And not only violate by applying motion to it, but try to conjure energy out of thin air.....


You just said energy wasnt conserved, make up your mind what you want to argue....

Not the least of which Both SR and GR have the conservation laws tied into the stress-energy tensor.... but if you wish to argue against those theories now, please feel free to do so. So again we see Einstein is on my side, not yours....

Noether's theorem - Wikipedia

"In special and general relativity, these apparently separate conservation laws are aspects of a single conservation law, that of the stress–energy tensor."

And in GR one must use a stress-energy tensor to describe all aspects of spacetime and mass.....


You wouldn't understand anymore than you understand with light..... since I already provided you with it once and yet here you are asking for what has already been given. Apparently you didnt read or understand it the first time so this time will be no different.....

The Doppler Effect

A New Non-Doppler Redshift



Versus your never linking to anything because nothing supports Fairie Dust except more Fairie Dust. Lol, you are a riot.....


What, you are unable to see the exact same situation with the earth as a satellite of the sun?

Really????



You are totally lost, the acceleration is centripetal, towards the center of mass. here let us illustrate........

View attachment 251850

"A centripetal force is a force that makes a body follow a curved path. Its direction is always orthogonal to the motion of the body and towards the fixed point of the instantaneous center of curvature of the path."

Who you trying to fool? But then that's probably why you never provide links but just keep making claims....



It is your inability to understand that acceleration adds energy which remains constant until the velocity of an object changes. learn your science.... So with every increase in acceleration energy is gained and then stays at that increased value.

Kinetic energy - Wikipedia

"In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes."



You didn't learn. The accelerometer reads 9.8 meters per second per second while stationary on earth. Only while under acceleration of 9.8 meters per second per second does it read as zero. Let us reiterate that, while it is under acceleration it reads zero.....


If your best argument and insult is a spelling error, I'm doing good enough that you have to grasp for straws.... Lol....

But since were stooping to this level, say's the guy that writes centripedal instead of centripetal....


I'm not concerned at all. I understand you can only dish it out but are too weak to take it....


Answered.

Now answer how your expanding space which isnt a real velocity does the same thing as a velocity, without using Doppler since that is the velocity of the source or target, not the space in between, unless you are now claiming a medium and applying motion to it??????

I asked you a straightforward question to show me the maths and physics that supports your assertion that the Doppler shift of a sound wave is the result exchanging energy with the air.
Instead I get this monstrous mindless parroting of Wikipedia links and diagrams that have no relevance to the answer including the mandatory insults.

Your inability of answering the question and more importantly how you answered it simply confirms what everyone knows; you are totally out your depth; you are dishonest in trying to portray the opposite case; and you show a deep seated resentment to those that have a far greater depth of knowledge and understanding than you do.

 

[SelfSim]

Since the physics of satellite orbits and the Earth orbit around the Sun are the same, the link refers to centripedal acceleration which acts radially towards the central mass of the orbit.
Tangential acceleration is perpendicular to the centripedal acceleration.
Even then you should be able to understand the Earth is moving in space tangentially to the orbit, not in the direction of the centripetal or gravitational force otherwise we would literally be toast.
Equally absurd is confusing the acceleration of an object in the Earth’s gravitational field with the tangential acceleration of the Earth in space.

You are totally lost, the acceleration is centripetal, towards the center of mass. here let us illustrate........

"A centripetal force is a force that makes a body follow a curved path. Its direction is always orthogonal to the motion of the body and towards the fixed point of the instantaneous center of curvature of the path."

Who you trying to fool? But then that's probably why you never provide links but just keep making claims....

What on earth are you (Justa) on about here?
What is your point?
You just posted information supporting what sjastro said ... and then you ask who he's trying to fool?!!!
Shheeessshhh!

 

[SelfSim]

I asked you a straightforward question to show me the maths and physics that supports your assertion that the Doppler shift of a sound wave is the result exchanging energy with the air.
Instead I get this monstrous mindless parroting of Wikipedia links and diagrams that have no relevance to the answer including the mandatory insults.

Your inability of answering the question and more importantly how you answered it simply confirms what everyone knows; you are totally out your depth; you are dishonest in trying to portray the opposite case; and you show a deep seated resentment to those that have a far greater depth of knowledge and understanding than you do.

Its unbelievable! ... Overwhelming in the depths of nonsensicality when someone (Justa) undertakes quote mining which defeats their own argument .. and then goes on to imply deception in what you've posted (all on the most basic of physics concepts)!!
What is going on here?

 

[SelfSim]

Says the guy that only preaches what those in the box tell him to think....

No one has 'told me what to think'

... and you should stop making such accusations right now!

Yes .. this is a warning!

You are not convincing at all, due to the fact that your views are totalitarian and anyone not in line with them, even if they are the ones thinking out of the box, are always wrong. Just because it is not what you believe....

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe .. I haven't stated my beliefs.

I could understand if you had actual laboratory evidence, but to claim never before tested physics that only happen outside of our fishbowl, while actual tested physics observed in our fishbowl fit even better..... making our fishbowl the entire universe instead of just a tiny portion thereof as you and Dad would have it....

You have 'zip' physics 'in our fishbowl which fits better'.
I'm perfectly clear on the difference between tangential acceleration and centripetal acceleration, for example. (You've shown you aren't, however).

The difference is when I think outside the box, i still keep in mind the laws of physics discovered in the box,

No .. you have just demonstrated, in writing, that you have no idea about one of the oldest and the most basic astrophysical principles: centripetal and tangential forces of objects in orbit.

What is really surprising is you all keep claiming to believe in Relativity and then throw it in the trash can. Knowing it is 99.8% correct right here in the solar system without any Fairie Dust at all - applied to non-ionized matter. but the second you go outside the solar system and attempt to apply it to a universe 99.9% plasma, suddenly it doesn't work anymore. But instead of using the physics for the correct state of matter, you try to sledgehammer it to work anyways, the result you end up needing 95% unknown, untestable Fairie Dust added to make it fit a semblance of reality.

Understanding Relativity is way beyond the basic concepts of orbital motion, in which you just demonstrated in your postings, you have zero understanding.

Oh .. and stop stating that 'you all keep claiming to believe in Relativity', when for my part of this, I have never, ever stated any such thing!!

 

[SelfSim]

Physical Laws and physical constants are human constructs that consistently describe what humans observe ..

Too bad we did not observe any such things in Noah's day.

Can you not read properly?
I clearly stated that Physical Laws and physical constants are consistent descriptions of observations .. Those descriptions post-date the time of your 'Noah'.

If you want to develop your imaginings, do not use misquotes of what I've posted in support of that.
Develop your own case!
Thus far, (over the years), you haven't convinced anyone of your totally unusable concept.

 

[sjastro]

What on earth are you (Justa) on about here?
What is your point?
You just posted information supporting what sjastro said ... and then you ask who he's trying to fool?!!!
Shheeessshhh!

It's par for the course, comprehension is not a prerequisite for quote mining.

 

[sjastro]

Its unbelievable! ... Overwhelming in the depths of nonsensicality when someone (Justa) undertakes quote mining which defeats their own argument .. and then goes on to imply deception in what you've posted (all on the most basic of physics concepts)!!
What is going on here?

Most likely it's a symptom of anti-intellectualism which is quite rife in this forum.

 

[SelfSim]

Most likely it's a symptom of anti-intellectualism which is quite rife this forum.

Seems pretty consistent with what we've encountered throughout this thread ...

 

[sjastro]

No .. you have just demonstrated, in writing, that you have no idea about one of the oldest and the most basic astrophysical principles: centripetal and tangential forces of objects in orbit.

Understanding Relativity is way beyond the basic concepts of orbital motion, in which you just demonstrated in your postings, you have zero understanding.

On the subject of relativity and ether, our resident self professed polymath got himself confused when quoting Einstein's paper on ether.

Einstein's version of ether was a gravitational ether based on the physical properties of space-time, not the luminiferous ether which had mechanical properties such as an "Ether Wind" caused by a moving body through it such as the orbiting Earth and required an absolute frame of reference which the Michelson-Morley test showed did not exist.

More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which I shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.

 

[SelfSim]

... Einstein's version of ether was a gravitational ether based on the physical properties of space-time, not the luminiferous ether which had mechanical properties such as an "Ether Wind" caused by a moving body through it such as the orbiting Earth and required an absolute frame of reference which the Michelson-Morley test showed did not exist.

I guess the phrase 'accelerating expansion of space' rolls off the fingertips with ease, but superficial word-salad only shapes beliefs .. and not physical properties.

 

[Ophiolite]

I guess the phrase 'accelerating expansion of space' rolls off the fingertips with ease, but superficial word-salad only shapes beliefs .. and not physical properties.

For your information, word salad is a concatentation of terms that sounds technical and impressive yet lacks significance or real meaning.

In contrast the phrase "accelerating expansion of space" is something that is well observed, has been quantitatively described and is associated with explanatory hypotheses.

Incorrectly claiming such a term is word salad indicates that either you don't know what word salad is, or you don't know what the accelerating expansion of space is, or both. Only you know which of these best defines your ignorance on the matter. Feel free to share.

 

[SelfSim]

For your information, word salad is a concatentation of terms that sounds technical and impressive yet lacks significance or real meaning.

In contrast the phrase "accelerating expansion of space" is something that is well observed, has been quantitatively described and is associated with explanatory hypotheses.

Incorrectly claiming such a term is word salad indicates that either you don't know what word salad is, or you don't know what the accelerating expansion of space is, or both. Only you know which of these best defines your ignorance on the matter. Feel free to share.

Just an out of context misunderstanding here.

'Tis the meaning Justatruthseeker confers on the term "accelerating expansion of space" which turns it into word-salad and not the objective meaning science has for it. (I agree with your take on it).

I think your objection is more appropriately directed at the confusion and obfuscation caused by Justatruthseeker's misconceived nonsense ...(?)
His 'spin' appeals to those who seem to think science is based on beliefs .. rather than objective testing (& following its process).

 

[Ophiolite]

Just an out of context misunderstanding here.

'Tis the meaning Justatruthseeker confers on the term "accelerating expansion of space" which turns it into word-salad and not the objective meaning science has for it. (I agree with your take on it).

I think your objection is more appropriately directed at the confusion and obfuscation caused by Justatruthseeker's misconceived nonsense ...(?)
His 'spin' appeals to those who seem to think science is based on beliefs .. rather than objective testing (& following its process).

Fair enough. I haven't read through the entire thread and so the "prior art" established through earlier exchanges was foreign to me. I agree that technical terms can be abused and that abuse can aptly be called word salad.

 

[sjastro]

I guess the phrase 'accelerating expansion of space' rolls off the fingertips with ease, but superficial word-salad only shapes beliefs .. and not physical properties.

Continuing on the subject of ether, the polymath's cut and paste job on the critique of the Michelson-Morley test is rather outdated as it is based on mirror interferometry.

The modern day interferometers are based on resonant cavity interferometers which are millions of times more sensitive.
With the rate of increase of sensitivity in interferometer design, scientists expect to shortly reach levels where testing for Lorentz violation can be achieved.
Before the cranks start to jump up and down celebrating that luminiferous ether could exist afterall, Lorentz violation is a test for whether the laws of physics are in fact the same for all observers in inertial frames.