Mordred

Speaking of arguments from other forums. A few years ago I worked out using redshift. How to make a cow appear blue to an observer. Did the cow really change color or did our measurement of said cow merely change? Its a similar argument with the color of trees in the nearby observer sees green but a distant observer sees a shade of blue. According to relativity both observers are correct. To be honest and this may add unnecessary confusion. Its extremely difficult to be in precisely the same frame of reference as an object. Take the wristwatch on your hand. One might think your eyes are in the same frame of reference as your hand. But your hand and eyes are in different gravitational potentials. Yes the time dilation is extremely miniscule that we can safely ignore it but its still present.

What I am describing as a true velocity is velocity defined by Newtons laws. Not observational to measurement offsets. As close to zero time dilation as you can accept. Im sorry you cannot see a simple math relation in seperation distance. [latex] v=H_0D [/latex]. yes its my turn to be sarcastic...😜 this relationship has little to do to observer time dilation. If you wish to believe observers dictate the physical laws of the universe go right ahead. Observer affects how we measure an event. It doesnt change the event itself. yes I'm still being sarcastic

The problem is relying on images. Even good images on relativity only portray specific relations. You need the math to truly understand those images. Image 2 for example took several supercomputers several months to generate. Yet you are comparing this to image one which can be generated on any smartphone. Image three can also be readily programmed on a home PC. You can't replace images without the math. All three images can be mathematically generated but they all require different sets of formulas The dark attractor is a local (compared to size of universe influence)

If your referring to flow as in gravity waves. None of your pictures match.... Gravity waves don't ressemble neither electromagnetic waves nor water waves. Gravity waves is a tranverse quadrupole wave form. (visualize squeezing a ball). Where water waves and electromagnetic sine waves are dipole tranverse waves. In all honesty Mike you cannot rely on images and intuition to understand science..... (switch your visual reliance to mathematical graphs) forget photography. The first three of your last images have different mathematical relations...

Higgs Metastability via SO (10) Mssm. May help resolve both. DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954 Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801

Well unfortunate on the time frame terminology mistake itself. Doesn't change the fact that length contraction, time dilation occurs without observer by dimensions (ct,x,y,z). cross posted with this accurate statement.

Actually I got proper time and coordinate time backwards. Those two always trip me up lol. Coodinate time is the event itself. Ie observer and emitter. each being a seperate event. Proper time is the time along the light path worldline. What Im trying to get through to Michel is each reference frame has in actuality its own rate of time. That doesnt depend on observers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time

10 (Assuming they are measuring the same object. If not then 10^10 length contractions possible roughly.)change the proper length. They change the coordinate length. No observer changes the proper time in a reference frame. Each observer in your scenario has his own proper time.

Time dilation and length contraction are both occuring regardless of observer. You might think this is ridiculous but science has essentailly proven this. We certainly didnt sit beside the clock on Mount Everest watching each second tick by. Yet without any observer. That clock ticked at a different rate than a clock at a different reference frame. That time dilation DID NOT REQUIRE an observer to occur That is your misconception of what is meant by the term relativity.

Its not really that hard to figure out. The problem seems to stem from the fact that GR describes the differences between reference frames. You place a clock in an inertial frame that clock will run at a specific rate regardless of whether or not someone is observing the clock. If you compare the inertial clock to a clock at rest you find a difference in clock rates. Thats when observer comes into effect. THE Comparison between the two clocks. Ok lets try a redshift comparison. Simply because its easier to relate to than time dilation... Our sun emits a specific blackbody temperature. That will give a specific wavelength. Different inertial observers will measure different wavelengths. However those observers Cannot and do not change the temperature of the Sun itself. The redshift is the difference between actual temperature vs observed temperature. Same thing with time dilation. Changing the observer doesnt change the proper time of the object. It just changes the amount of difference between the proper time of the object compared to the proper time of the observer. Consider this You are observer A looking at your wrist watch. You always see your wrist watch running at a constant rate. A different observer in a different reference frame will observe a different rate compared to his wrist watch. No matter what Observer B does (speed up or slow down) The rate that observer A sees his wrist watch moving doesnt change. Both observers will disagree that the wrist watch shows a constant time. Yet both observations are equally accurate. If observer B takes time dilation into effect and calculates the differences due to time dilation. Then both observers agree that the wrist watch is running at a constant rate and the difference between clocks is due to the difference between reference frames (relativity)

no your still missing the big picture. Observers do affect how we measure. However time dilation and length contraction doesnt always involve observers. They occur regardless of the observer. Where the observer comes into play is comparing the two inertial reference frames and showing the differences between the two frames. For example an observer on the spacecraft you mentioned wont observe his craft as length contracted or time dilated because he is in the same frame of reference. This doesnt mean that there is no time dilation or length contraction. In fact there is to another reference frame. length contraction and time dilation doesn't depend on reference frames. The observer shows the differences between one reference frame compared to another reference frame. This is an extremely important distinction Relativity can be described as measurement change between reference frames. Or from one reference frame to another.

Nothing Strange said is a contradiction. It seems to me your having difficulty understanding how light can reach us. When the recessive velocity of expansion is greater than c. Recessive velocity. Is not a true velocity the only observers who will measure a greater than c velocity of a galaxy are observers at greater than 4400 Mpc plus or minus 400 Mpc. Any observers less than that distance will measure the Galaxy at recessive velocity of less than c. This is just due to the formula used to calculate recessive velocity. [latex]v=H_od [/latex] this recessive velocity is an "Apparent or peculiar " velocity. Not a true velocity. A true velocity involves Newtons laws. An apparent velocity does not as it varies due to observer.

To add to this. Physics is useless unless it can make mathematical predictions.

Well thats a silly notion. You already have length contraction and time dilation with c being invarient to all observers. Now you wish to introduce another dimension of change? If you think about it. Your last statement essentially reads. "We must observe light during its entire passage in order to have a definable velocity." if the speed of light is dictated by observers. How would light travel without any observers.???? You seem to have a misunderstanding of GR. Time dilation and contraction does occur without any observers. Google muon decay with regards to Earths atmosphere for example. Those muons will still strike the Earths surface regardless of observers. They can only do so with time dilation.

Well you may not agree with it but here is a seperate study that helps fine tune Hubble constant. The Sloan sky survey detailed below uses Baryon accoustic oscillations,monte carlo and the Sache Wolfe effect. Coupled with a huge sky survey to measure expansion. http://www.google.ca/url?q=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.03155&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwi_v4vg75HOAhUQ-GMKHb1KD1MQFggTMAE&sig2=J_pdZqmUqGB2rkvIUQFNlA&usg=AFQjCNGH9zH2298XtMkhQM70NPSEqkuE-A this is one study that does not rely upon CMB. It also focuses on looking for redshift distortions. One thing to note this study is more focussed on our local region. The paper greatly restricts the alternative F ® gravity model alternative. Its also a recent study

Glad to see your still working at it. I may suggest studying the equations of state behind Hubble expansion. Thermodynamically you can equate the mathematics to an adiabatic and isothermal expansion of a mixed ideal gas.

Here are some articles I was looking for. This one details the Abelion groups first then adds the non Abelion groups. http://www.google.ca/url?q=https://www.theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de/lsfrey/teaching/archiv/sose_09/rng/higgs_mechanism.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiAtvTzzojOAhVG_mMKHaWnAhg4ChAWCCkwBg&sig2=EL47Ra_pNKpXPuwfhVsBlw&usg=AFQjCNE8cAhfJM_PlDVnojGx2q08moVF6A This one provides some greater detail. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwjp4q-arojOAhUBHmMKHXJJA2EQFggzMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbolvan.ph.utexas.edu%2F~vadim%2FClasses%2F15f%2FGWS.pdf&usg=AFQjCNERKRJ8XfA8ktvOxEy8YzRI-2NZBQ&sig2=vJ51qmbImVctncPr6ysY1Q Have you familiarity with the eightfold way? Some details you will need to understand the guage groups are the conservation rules in particle physics. ie conservation of spin,isospin,charge,color,parity etc.

I certainly know my 12' Dodelson mount skywatcher can't lol. Picks up craters roughly 8 km in size though.

Roflmao you may find SO (10) a la Pati-Salam handy. It touches on the SO (2) groups both left and right hand. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjQ6ei66ofOAhVQwGMKHduUBbUQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcds.cern.ch%2Frecord%2F546538%2Ffiles%2F0204097.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH8HRdfqO8_OjuqGnQ35xwrdMWnBA&sig2=fBInGkpTP76slqqp8styCQ Im still digging on a few articles I recall

Well I can give some preliminary reading material. You will need the basic particle physics aspects to understand the groups. for example Baryon octect and meson nonet groups. http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 part 2 part 2 gets into the Relativity aspects.

I believe Sean Caroll also has some papers in arxiv on the Lorentz group.

Its been a few years since I last looked at Weinberg angle involvement on Pati-Salam. I'll have to review a bit before I answer. If I remember correct though the Higgs field can be any non zero value. Then with the left/right helicity and the Weinberg mixing angle you get the values needed. (subject to off hand memory though). Also no there is nothing basic about Pati-Salam....(that includes Weinberg-Salam theory)

I can dig up some pdfs for you. The subject is quite intensive. I have to go through my archives to find the articles I found most useful.

You can also use the calculator in my signature. Change number of steps. Play with the min max stretch range. The calculator can graph or fine tune to any time period. You can calculate distance now, distance at time it was closest. The various horizons etc... Open column definitions.

good point