Relativity

[AV1611VET]

FYI AV, they typically *never* differentiate between the two. In fact they tend to "bait" the would be believer with Doppler shift and then *switch* them to space expansion claims, and thereby use Doppler shift to try to support their unsupported *space expansion* claims.

I'll have to investigate this further, Michael.

Thanks for the heads-up!

 

[Oafman]

Approriate new sig

 

[essentialsaltes]

What is "space", and how *exactly* does it 'expand'? Only spacetime and distance are defined in GR, not 'space'.

Michael's broken record player has gone off again.

For first graders (so Michael can follow along, since he seems not to have understood the first couple times)

Spacetime is made of space and time. Amazing, no?

The general relativistic redshift caused by time dilation has been directly measured in the lab.

Apart from a difference of a plus sign vs. a minus sign in the metric, space and time are treated equivalently in relativity theory.

Thus, there is no reason to doubt redshifts due to space expansion.

If clocks wiggle (and they do), then rulers necessarily wobble.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

GR describes matter in close confines only. In the vast reaches of outer space it fails utterly to predict or describe accurately observations. That it works good in the solar system is not disputed, where the EM forces are balanced being in close confines. But at the galactic scale it fails, and additional hypothetical unfalsifiable entities are required to make it even kind of match observations.

But if one is content with a theory that describes 1% of the universe, best of luck to you trying to describe that other 99% and not be constantly surprised when the data doesn't match. Ahh yes, but we will just fix it by adding more Fairie Dust to the equation while continuing to ignore what 99% of the universe actually is. Abara-cadabera, see, the math works fine (once we fudge it with 96% Fairie Dust).

All hail the gods of the Big Bang religion!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Michael's broken record player has gone off again.

For first graders (so Michael can follow along, since he seems not to have understood the first couple times)

Spacetime is made of space and time. Amazing, no?

The general relativistic redshift caused by time dilation has been directly measured in the lab.

Apart from a difference of a plus sign vs. a minus sign in the metric, space and time are treated equivalently in relativity theory.

Thus, there is no reason to doubt redshifts due to space expansion.

If clocks wiggle (and they do), then rulers necessarily wobble.

What is space made up of? Are you saying space is an ether that it can be bent and expand? If so, should we not reconsider ether based theories as well?

There is every reason to doubt redshifts due to space (which is composed of nothing according to mainstream) expanding. Redshift has never been observed in the lab outside of a medium. Which is why redshift is caused by plasma and photon absorption and scattering. The only redshift EVER observed in the lab.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Are you saying space is an ether that it can be bent and expand?

No.

If so,

Not needed.

Redshift has never been observed in the lab outside of a medium.

Wrong again.

"To get the necessary separation of "clocks," they launched the atoms into a vacuum... This... allow[ed] the experimenters to isolate the effects of redshift.
...
The phase difference was influenced by a number of factors, but the researchers found that the effects all canceled each other out—all except for the redshift from the slightly different gravitational effects of the two different trajectories. Plugging this into the right equations gave a new measure of the gravitational redshift parameter that is 10,000 times more accurate than previously obtained values."

Which is why redshift is caused by plasma and photon absorption and scattering.

Well, since you're wrong about the vacuum, you're wrong about this.

The only redshift EVER observed in the lab.

Bzzzt, wrong again, as I showed above.

Now that you've been shown the error of your ways, you will now logically discard your disproven pseudoscience. No, wait, that's not how cranks and crackpots operate. They are immune to facts.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No.



Not needed.



Wrong again.

"To get the necessary separation of "clocks," they launched the atoms into a vacuum... This... allow[ed] the experimenters to isolate the effects of redshift.
...
The phase difference was influenced by a number of factors, but the researchers found that the effects all canceled each other out—all except for the redshift from the slightly different gravitational effects of the two different trajectories. Plugging this into the right equations gave a new measure of the gravitational redshift parameter that is 10,000 times more accurate than previously obtained values."



Well, since you're wrong about the vacuum, you're wrong about this.



Bzzzt, wrong again, as I showed above.

Now that you've been shown the error of your ways, you will now logically discard your disproven pseudoscience. No, wait, that's not how cranks and crackpots operate. They are immune to facts.

You don't really expect me to believe that clocks being moved have anything to do wiith redshift do you? The atom is controled by the EM force. As one moves further or closer to a source of energy the clock gains or looses energy from the electric field. Just as under acceleration it gains energy. Before you tell me what causes a clock to slow or speed up perhaps you should find out what controls that cessium atom.

So space is not an ether, yet you really want me to believe that it bends and expands when it is composed of nothing? Ahh yes, but mainstream is fond of working with nothing, like it does with dark matter, black holes, neutron stars. All the Fairie Dust required to make the math work, because without Fairie Dust the math is completely useless!

Mainstream science has more Fairie Dust than any religion ever dreamed of needing. You got space, which is not an ether so is composed of absolutely nothing. This nothing is then bent by something and then nothing tells something how to move. Does that about sum it up? And lets not forget that nothing can now expand as well, since your fabricated redshift left you with no choice but to make up something when observations would mean that galaxies were accellerating close to c by your erroneous interpretation.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf

The only redshift in the lab you have ever observed. "Gravitational redshift can be measured at varying levels of Earth's own atmosphere," because redshift is due to a medium, and is only observed in a medium, it is a doppler shift.

Don't ask me to believe in Fairie Dust that is nothing but bends and expands. I already have a religion, I certainly do not need two. Yes, let us postulate that absolutely nothing bends and expands and tells matter how to move. Why didn't I see it before, that is such a logical theory indeed. The theory of nothing!

 

[Tomk80]

You don't really expect me to believe that clocks being moved have anything to do wiith redshift do you?

This sentence is all one needs to know that you haven't actually read the article or understood it. Try again.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You don't really expect me to believe that clocks being moved have anything to do wiith redshift do you?

I went to all the trouble of quoting the pertinent detail. Let me do it again. "The phase difference was influenced by a number of factors, but the researchers found that the effects all canceled each other out—all except for the redshift from the slightly different gravitational effects of the two different trajectories."

As one moves further or closer to a source of energy

Rule one of spotting pseudoscience: vague use of the word 'energy'.

the clock gains or looses energy from the electric field.

Hey, then clocks would be affected by van de Graaff generators! Look, an experimental test of your hypothesis! And it fails spectacularly!

Now that you've been shown the error of your ways, you will now logically discard your disproven pseudoscience. No, wait, that's not how cranks and crackpots operate. They are immune to facts.

 

[Michael]

No.

Then please explain to me what exactly "space" might be. GR theory only describes distance and 'spacetime'. Space and "time" are not separate entities in GR, they are interrelated based upon the curvatures of spacetime. GR theory doesn't define the word "space". Spacetime is defined by the mass/energy concentrations, and the geometric curvature related to those concentrations of mass/energy. Spacetime can expand, only as the objects that makeup "spacetime" move. Objects in motion will indeed stay in motion, and spacetime can expand accordingly. Spacetime however cannot expand faster than 2C (C in every direction), because the objects themselves are limited to C.

Space is not define in GR. I have no idea what you're talking about. It sure *smells* like an aether. It sure *acts* like an aether. Unlike spacetime, you haven't physically defined it in any way for us. If it's not an aether made of tiny little particles that expand over time, what the heck is space made of, and how *exactly* does it expand?

Thus far all you've given me to work with is an *undefined* term that has no physical meaning whatsoever. If you're not creating an expanding aether called 'space', what the pagan hades is "space" made of, and how does it expand faster than 2C?

When *if ever* can I expect to see you demonstrate this space expansion trick in a lab so I can verify that 'space' exists, and it's capable of "expanding"?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Then please explain to me what exactly "space" might be. GR theory only describes distance and 'spacetime'. Space and "time" are not separate entities in GR, they are interrelated based upon the curvatures of spacetime.

Why did time suddenly get scare quotes? Before, you didn't seem to have any trouble with spacetime. Or with time. Which makes your confusion about space rather perplexing.

You're right that space and time are interrelated, though i'm not sure how you can say that since you allegedly don't know what space is.

In Euclidean three-space, we know that rotations mix our three spatial coordinates together. Changing coordinate frames to one that has been rotated around the z axis will change the coordinates of a given point so that its new x and y coordinates are a mixture of the old x and y coordinates.

In Minkowskian four-space, we add a time dimension.

In Special Relativity, changing to a coordinate frame that has a relative velocity compared to the old frame (a boost), causes not a rotation, but a Lorentz transformation that mixes the space and time coordinates. But we still end up in a coordinate frame with three spatial and one time coordinate.

How do we know? Because the Minkowski metric still has three positive and one negative entry.

As you say, distance (i.e. proper length) is defined. And part of that definition is that the time coordinate enters into the formula with an opposite sign to the three spatial coordinates.

In GR, the metric is more complex, but the same applies. Three coordinates get one sign, and one gets the other. ("the metric is required to be nondegenerate with signature (-+++)") The three coordinates associated with the plus sign are the space coordinates of spacetime, and the remaining coordinate with the negative sign is the time coordinate of spacetime.

Yes, space and time get mixed together, but this does not change the signature of the metric, which still provides for three space and one time coordinate.

So if you're okay with spacetime, the answer to your question is that space (for a particular frame) is the part of spacetime associated with positive entries in the spacetime metric.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Space and "time" are not separate entities in GR, they are interrelated based upon the curvatures of spacetime.

As you say, space and time are interrelated.

So getting back to your tired hobbyhorse,

If clocks wiggle, then rulers necessarily wobble.

Time dilation has been measured in the lab.
Space and time are interrelated and get partially transformed into each other when moving to different frames.
Therefore a different observer would measure part of that lab-measured time dilation as a lab-measured spatial expansion.

If you accept time dilation from GR, you have to accept space expansion. They come together, necessarily.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As you say, space and time are interrelated.

So getting back to your tired hobbyhorse,

If clocks wiggle, then rulers necessarily wobble.

No, the occilation rate of the atom changes because the energy input into the atom changes and electrons take on tighter orbits which cause:

1) less oscillation of the atom as tighter orbits are necessarily closer along the ecliptic plane, and;

2) rulers to shrink because tighter orbits means the spacing between atoms lessen.

Time dilation has been measured in the lab.
Space and time are interrelated and get partially transformed into each other when moving to different frames.
Therefore a different observer would measure part of that lab-measured time dilation as a lab-measured spatial expansion.

If you accept time dilation from GR, you have to accept space expansion. They come together, necessarily.

No, time dilation has not been measured, merely the oscilation rate of the cessium atom as more or less energy is inputed into the system due to the electric fields through which they move. There is no such thing as time being a fourth dimension, or of space being composed of nothing yet bending and expanding. it is voltage differential due to the electric fields that ALL matter emits.

Apparently GR doesn't work very good or it would explain the orbits of galaxies as well as it does the orbits of planets in our solar system where matter is in close confines. instead one must postilate at least 5 seperate undetectable entities to make the math even closely resemble what we observe. Just outrageous!

Velocity increases energy input, yet the object does not attain more matter than it started with, and all the extra energy is dissipitated once acceleration is stopped. If you use a constant 2G thrust you will have twice the energy, yet not twice the matter that you had before. When thrust is cut you will immediately return to your previous energy level i n respect to your surroundings.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I went to all the trouble of quoting the pertinent detail. Let me do it again. "The phase difference was influenced by a number of factors, but the researchers found that the effects all canceled each other out—all except for the redshift from the slightly different gravitational effects of the two different trajectories."



Rule one of spotting pseudoscience: vague use of the word 'energy'.



Hey, then clocks would be affected by van de Graaff generators! Look, an experimental test of your hypothesis! And it fails spectacularly!

Now that you've been shown the error of your ways, you will now logically discard your disproven pseudoscience. No, wait, that's not how cranks and crackpots operate. They are immune to facts.

You mean the vague use of the word energy in E=mc^2.

Tell me, what is energy since you believe my use to be vague, please define it for me if you think you are able to. Work? What is work, a force? A force, what is that, energy?

Laughable your evasions!

Why would a generator effect them? Apparently you do not understand how electric fields work. A feather or a hammer, both fall at the same rate regardless of mass because they are already part of the Earth's electrical field. They are not seperate from this field but have been subsumed in it. Just as you have. When you stand at the poles the 100,000 amperes every second from space doesn't fry you, because you are part of that electric transaction already. You become charged to the same voltage, as does your detector, as does the clock, as does everything sharing that field. This is why volatge is relative and can only be measured from between two points, just as the gravitational field.

 

[Michael]

Why did time suddenly get scare quotes? Before, you didn't seem to have any trouble with spacetime. Or with time. Which makes your confusion about space rather perplexing.

You're right that space and time are interrelated, though i'm not sure how you can say that since you allegedly don't know what space is.

Forget the quotes, it's just a bad habit of mine.

I have a definition of spacetime from GR. The term 'space' has no meaning in GR, just distance and spactime. Spacetime can expand, but only as the objects themselves (or energy) move and expand. There is no "space" as separate from "spacetime" in GR.

In Euclidean three-space, we know that rotations mix our three spatial coordinates together. Changing coordinate frames to one that has been rotated around the z axis will change the coordinates of a given point so that its new x and y coordinates are a mixture of the old x and y coordinates.

In Minkowskian four-space, we add a time dimension.

In Special Relativity, changing to a coordinate frame that has a relative velocity compared to the old frame (a boost), causes not a rotation, but a Lorentz transformation that mixes the space and time coordinates. But we still end up in a coordinate frame with three spatial and one time coordinate.

How do we know? Because the Minkowski metric still has three positive and one negative entry.

As you say, distance (i.e. proper length) is defined. And part of that definition is that the time coordinate enters into the formula with an opposite sign to the three spatial coordinates.

Ok.

In GR, the metric is more complex, but the same applies. Three coordinates get one sign, and one gets the other. ("the metric is required to be nondegenerate with signature (-+++)") The three coordinates associated with the plus sign are the space coordinates of spacetime, and the remaining coordinate with the negative sign is the time coordinate of spacetime.

Yes, space and time get mixed together, but this does not change the signature of the metric, which still provides for three space and one time coordinate.

So if you're okay with spacetime, the answer to your question is that space (for a particular frame) is the part of spacetime associated with positive entries in the spacetime metric.

The problem is that you're modifying the metric at will with supernatural constructs! When can I expect to see a demonstration of this 'space expansion' claim in a controlled experiment? If you can't demonstrate that claim in controlled experimentation, why should I believe such a thing *ever* happens?

 

[Michael]

The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements

Well J, if you insist on arguing an EM TOE, I'll do my best to support you where I can. The article above demonstrates the EM fields *do* have an effect on atomic decay times and atomic clocks.

I'm personally fine (happier at the moment) discussing GR theory with E strictly on GR terms, but I'll support you where I can. I like the "both sides of the street" discussions. They are definitely enlightening IMO.

It should be noted that when we slam electrons and positrons together in the lab, we end up with subatomic particles. A neutron also has a much more complex structure than we previously imagined.

If there is a single force of nature that *could* hope to explain every behavior inside of a mostly plasma universe, it is mostly likely to be the EM field. I think even Essentialsaltes would agree.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The problem is

No, there's no problem. I just defined what the space part of spacetime is. And it has nothing to do with dark anythings or cosmological whatnots. It's basically the same as in special relativity.

that you're modifying the metric at will with supernatural constructs!

No, no, no! The entities to which you object are all included as parts of the energy-momentum tensor (the right side of Einstein's GR equation). The Einstein tensor (the left side of the equation) depends only on the metric, and the metric has a fixed signature of +++-. 3 space dimensions, 1 time dimension. There's your space and time.

f you can't demonstrate that claim in controlled experimentation, why should I believe such a thing *ever* happens?

I see you have been copying from the YEC songbook. Your demand to see cosmic expansion inside a room is equivalent to asking for a crocoduck.

As I have patiently explained, and as you agree, space and time are interrelated, and we do have controlled experiments demonstrating time dilation redshift. So there is no reason to doubt space expansion redshift.

I think even Essentialsaltes would agree.

No.

 

[essentialsaltes]

all the extra energy is dissipitated once acceleration is stopped.

Again you fail high school physics. If you accelerate your car to 100 mph, then stop your acceleration (i.e. maintain constant speed), and then aim your car at a wall, you do not hit the wall with zero energy. Kinetic energy (in high school physics) is proportional to the square of the velocity, not acceleration.

Your understanding of energy is not only vague, but wrong.

I think even Michael would agree.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements

Well J, if you insist on arguing an EM TOE, I'll do my best to support you where I can. The article above demonstrates the EM fields *do* have an effect on atomic decay times and atomic clocks.

I'm personally fine (happier at the moment) discussing GR theory with E strictly on GR terms, but I'll support you where I can. I like the "both sides of the street" discussions. They are definitely enlightening IMO.

It should be noted that when we slam electrons and positrons together in the lab, we end up with subatomic particles. A neutron also has a much more complex structure than we previously imagined.

If there is a single force of nature that *could* hope to explain every behavior inside of a mostly plasma universe, it is mostly likely to be the EM field. I think even Essentialsaltes would agree.

But That's the problem M, Even though the Standard Model of the atom was just confirmed almost to the Tee (electromagnetic force controlling) They are as you know still looking for an electrically free explanation of the atom. I find it quite ironic that in high energy physics where they smash particles together at fractions of c, they are actually looking for an electrically neutral particle from this event. The very idea that acceleration can be accomplished without energy, or that a particle created from such a high energy event that is electrically neutral is beyond comprehension. To even exist in GR matter must have an energy content even at rest, let alone at velocities close to c.

Anoher problem I have with dark matter, it is electrically neutral, and we have never in our lifetimes observed a particle that was electrically neutral, not even the neutron. It defies the very meaning of E=mc^2.

I could discuss GR without an EU slant, but I hink it is quite useless in the end to do so. If GR was not missing something, at least 6 undetectable entities would not have to be supplied to make it work everywhere but the solar system and center of galaxies. It describes very well matter that is in close confines, where the electric and magnetic fields are more in balance, due to the constituent particles to be more aligned.

But because of Lorentz' incorrect longitudinal force equation (that only considers the velocity of one of two particles, we get errors when the angles and distances between these particles increase due to the velocity of two particles relative to one another, not just one particle in velocity with another. In close confines matter tends to move together, not every single constituent particle in greater freedom in relation to every other particle.

To date Weber is the only person to have developed a Relativistic Physical Theory consistent with the electric, magnetic and observational evidence. The only theory to consider the velocity of all particles (not just one of two), and the distance and angles between particles. Most are unaware that Weber is the first to have formulated the speed of c, the first to measure it, and had a complete Relitivistic Theory compatible with Maxwell's, Guass', Amperes', Faraday, and all the others of Thermodynamics theory, etc.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What is work, a force?

No, they have different units.

A force, what is that, energy?

No, they have different units.

Laughable your evasions!

Your understanding of physics is not laughable. It is too pathetic for laughter.

Why would a generator effect [sic] them?

Not a generator. A van de Graaff generator. It builds up electric charge, and can easily produce voltage differences with the ground of a few million volts. The electric field is thus on the order of some few million volts/meter.

You contend that a "clock gains or looses [sic] energy from the electric field"

And that this 'energy' gain (or loss) has something to do with the vibrations of the cesium atom.

You contend that time dilation is due to electric effects on the cosmic scale. But if I quote crackpot central (thunderbolts.info)...

"But as noted above, in the plasma glow-discharge model the interplanetary electric field will be extremely weak. No instrument placed in space could measure the radial voltage differential ... the electric field of the Sun, though imperceptible in terms of volts per meter..."

If an imperceptible E field is supposed to have these magical effects, why can't the several million V/m field from a van de Graaff generator produce some magical time dilation effects in the lab?

They don't, and this crucial experiment shows that your hypothesis is utterly wrong.