Is there a 1 s/s diference in the rate of time between the observer and a distance of 13.9 Gly?

[captcass]

When we do a plot on a radar screen (yes, I can do that, too ), we use relative motion to determine true motion. Well, we know the relative motion thanks to GR.  am looking for the true motion.....

[koti]

31 minutes ago, captcass said:

When we do a plot on a radar screen (yes, I can do that, too ), we use relative motion to determine true motion. Well, we know the relative motion thanks to GR.  am looking for the true motion.....

You clearly have no clue what relativity in physics is. I think it would be wiser for you to ask questions instead of making a fool of yourself.

[captcass]

Sorry, I see it differently. The moderator will probably shut this thread down and give me another point off for this, but this thread is going nowhere anyway.

One day a man came into my museum. Yes, I also established a museum I own. I won't say of what as it is unique and that would reveal my identity and location. Very popular, though. I get about 20,000 visitors a year and it is the most popular privately owned attraction in my area.

Anyway, a man came in and stood at the counter, never looking at me, with eyes cast down, and didn't say a word. For some reason I was moved to tell him about my idea on the origin of spacetime and our status as observers....it only takes a minute.

Well, he looked up, put out his hand to shake mine and looked me n the eye and said, "It is a true pleasure to meet you, sir. You are a very rare man. Among my people (he was a Huron) when we thank someone for something, we look them in the eye and thank them with what we call 'two minds'.

We thank them as the individual they are, and we thank the one within them that ties us together and brought that person to us."

As uncomfortable as this makes you folks feel. This is also an aspect of the continuum pretty much recognized in one form or another in most cultures. Science ignores this for the most part. Jung tried to make it scientific but that is way outside physics. The closest we are getting to it is in quantum physics, but the Copenhagen Interpretation pretty much took it out of the mainstream conversation.

So, expecting a shutdown for being mathless, I say "BiBi", again. (BiBi is the old telegrapher sign off. Yes, I can do that, too, but was not a telegrapher. 

BiBi

 

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

But at least we know now why science isn't working for you. 

I didn't say that. I love the science. I don't like some of the theories being promulgated from it. I have always loved the science, the math, all of it. I love the logic of it all. That is why I cannot accept illogical theories.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, captcass said:

When we do a plot on a radar screen (yes, I can do that, too ), we use relative motion to determine true motion. Well, we know the relative motion thanks to GR.  am looking for the true motion.....

We only know relative motion. There is nothing but relative motion. Galileo realised this 400 years ago. You need to catch up.

And what the heck does GR have to do with radar?

[Phi for All]

38 minutes ago, captcass said:

That is why I cannot accept illogical theories.

Again, you show that you don't understand science. Theories are, by definition, the height of critical thinking (which is probably what you really mean by "logic", since real logic is used more in maths and philosophy than in science). Theories are the best current explanations we have for various phenomena.

[Strange]

38 minutes ago, captcass said:

I love the science. I don't like some of the theories being promulgated from it.

Those theories are science.

38 minutes ago, captcass said:

I have always loved the science, the math, all of it. I love the logic of it all. That is why I cannot accept illogical theories.

If you understood the math, the logic and the evidence, then you would understand why the theories are accepted and why your personal dislike is irrelevant. The science works. That is all it has to do.

You want more than that, which means you don't want (and don't really love) science. You love what you think science ought to be, which is some sort of pseudoscience.

[captcass]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

And what the heck does GR have to do with radar?

Where there is relative motion there is true motion. We just haven't found a way to map it out so are stuck in the relativistic reality. I think the answer is in the GR field equations somewhere and involves the anomalies of light, but can't get it together yet. That is why I am working on light's anomalies and the relationships of the rate of time to the rate of evolution in a diltion gradient.

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Theories are, by definition, the height of critical thinking

Yes, but they are just theories and if the wrong conclusions are reached from the evidence, the theory goes astray.

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

If you understood the math, the logic and the evidence, then you would understand why the theories are accepted

I do understand why they are accepted. The evidence certainly seems to point that way. I used to sort of accept them. I thought Guth might have the answer when I read his book. But when they become illogical, they leave the scientific realm for me. Just the gibberish of frustrated minds. The one thing we have learned is that it is a logical universe. Even when the logic is wrong, like Newton's "laws", we find it again in GR. I find GR to be perfectly logical. A lot of people were horrified by the implications when it first took hold, but it is perfectly logical. The other theories being espoused are not.

Sorry folks. I am afraid you cannot save me from myself. I am too far gone.

 

The relative aspect is each other's clock is slower and meter shorter. I agree this forms the basis of our reality. The true aspect is the clocks and meter sticks are identical. We know this because we stipulated it.

[Strange]

21 minutes ago, captcass said:

Where there is relative motion there is true motion.

There is no evidence for that. And good reasons to think it is false. 

22 minutes ago, captcass said:

I think the answer is in the GR field equations somewhere

As you are so smart, it should be trivial for you to demonstrate that. However, as the equations are for the theory of relativity, I am guessing that you are wrong.

23 minutes ago, captcass said:

and involves the anomalies of light

What anomalies of light?

23 minutes ago, captcass said:

Yes, but they are just theories and if the wrong conclusions are reached from the evidence, the theory goes astray.

"Just theory" is the slogan of the pseudoscientist.

And either the evidence fits with the theory or it doesn't. You haven't provided any evidence that GR is wrong, just a weird aesthetic/spiritual argument.

25 minutes ago, captcass said:

But when they become illogical

What do you mean by "illogical"? I assume you mean "it doesn't make sense to me" or "I don't like them".

After all, there are no logical inconsistencies in the theories, so you can't mean it in the correct sense.

Quote

I find GR to be perfectly logical. ... The other theories being espoused are not.

The  "other theory" you have been discussing in this thread is the Big Bang model. This is just GR. So if you think the Big Bang model is wrong, then you must think GR is wrong, no?

[captcass]

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

ou haven't provided any evidence that GR is wrong,

I didn't say it is wrong. It is perfectly correct and works perfectly in a spherical dilation pit. I am saying that what it is describing is being misunderstood. It is not the movement "through" a "distorted" spacetime. It is the evolution of events down time dilation gradients in the continuum as the continuum evolves forward. The apparent curvature of motion "through" space is what GR describes and is the reality we are stuck in. But nothing moves "through" anywhere.

In stellar systems, I am thinking events in slower time frames appear to have higher velocities because more of those seconds have to pass for those frames to keep up with the evolution of the faster frames, maintaining the integrity of the continuum.

Please do not say that this is not GR. GR uses the differences in rates of time to derive velocities... GR is not the phenomenon, it describes the phenomenon, which is the relativistic evolution of events in the time dilated continuum. Not objects in spaces, an energy field with densities.

Really, Strange? "What anomalies of light?"   

AND...I know I could very well be wrong. This is what I am THINKING about these days.

AND I know the curvature manifestation is due to the visual effects of SR.

This does not exclude the time element from being a significant factor in other ways.

59 minutes ago, Strange said:

As you are so smart,

What is your problem? You ask me and I tell you what I am thinking. What drives you to make this personal? Again, I don' t know why the moderator tolerates it......

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, captcass said:

It is perfectly correct and works perfectly in a spherical dilation pit.

And there you go again showing that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Quote

I am saying that what it is describing is being misunderstood.

As you have no math or evidence to support this, there is no reason to take it seriously. 

24 minutes ago, captcass said:

GR uses the differences in rates of time to derive velocities..

GR uses the geometry of space-time to calculate how things move. 

But feel free to show us your math. 

26 minutes ago, captcass said:

Really, Strange? "What anomalies of light?"

Really. 

[captcass]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

And there you go again showing that you don’t know what you are talking about.

I dealt with this above. It is about perspective. You just don't understand I am looking t it from a different perspective.

Google light anomalies.

Remove all considerations of mass since GR does not utilize mass, only time dilation. Visualize the continuum with no mass, just the gravitational time dilation fields. How and why are events then evolving?

[captcass]

It is the interplay of the dilation gradients that make even 2 body solutions to GR so difficult that everyone uses Newton's formulas instead.

1 hour ago, captcass said:

Remove all considerations of mass since GR does not utilize mass, only time dilation. Visualize the continuum with no mass, just the gravitational time dilation fields. How and why are events then evolving?

Now remove the light. How and why are things evolving?

Without light, there are no relativistic effects based on the characteristics of light to observe. What is the relative motion then? Or are we down to true motion?

[koti]

1 hour ago, captcass said:

Remove all considerations of mass since GR does not utilize mass, only time dilation. Visualize the continuum with no mass, just the gravitational time dilation fields. How and why are events then evolving?

 

36 minutes ago, captcass said:

It is the interplay of the dilation gradients that make even 2 body solutions to GR so difficult that everyone uses Newton's formulas instead.

Now remove the light. How and why are things evolving?

Thats just word salad. Stop it please. 

[captcass]

Or perhaps just quantum possibilities and probabilities in the spacetime continuum. This is my choice.

1 minute ago, koti said:

Thats just word salad. Stop it please. 

Sorry, it is a fact. See how many multiple body solutions for GR you can find and correct me if I am wrong. I couldn't find any. Even Einsein's Mercury solution is rare bird and most don't know how he cut the final 12 equations to 10.

I admit, I have not yet worked a solution to try to determine that or the significance, if any, of the other two equations.

Time, time, time, it is all about time, and I am running out of time, and just don't have enough time to work on all these things regarding time! This is the old fart blues. Do I really have enough time left to spend thinking about this time stuff? Whatever happened to cheerleaders?! Getting stupid. Guess that's it for me tonight. Thank you for your time.

[koti]

1 hour ago, captcass said:

Remove all considerations of mass since GR does not utilize mass, only time dilation. Visualize the continuum with no mass, just the gravitational time dilation fields. How and why are events then evolving?

Mass/Energy cause gravity. Gravity in GR is spacetime curvature. Mass and energy are equivalent. Time dilation and length contraction is what happens to matter under relativistic conditions. Spacetime under GR becomes an actor in the scene, not the scene itself like previously under Newton.

Theres so much bullshit in your posts that I don’t even know how to aproach it hence my short sentences above.

[captcass]

My museum is the museum of old, outdated theories. Just kidding. Wanna guess? I bet one of you is smart enough to figure it out......Oh noooooooooo!

1 minute ago, koti said:

Mass/Energy cause gravity.

No they don't. They have nothing to do with GR's field equations which rely totally on differences in the rates of time. Einstein says he added the stress energy tensor as an accommodation to the conservation of energy and the GR did not require it. I quote the paragraph of his 1915 paper in my paper. Time dilation creates the effects.

6 minutes ago, koti said:

Time dilation and length contraction is what happens to matter under relativistic conditions.

Time dilation requires length extension to maintain c. Special and General Relativity are based on the Lorentz contractions, which are visual, not physical, and based on the anomalies of light. (Google the anomalies of light)

18 minutes ago, koti said:

Spacetime under GR becomes an actor in the scene, not the scene itself like previously under Newton.

I think you are wrong. GR describes the scene, just like Newton, and it is certainly not an "actor". What "action" is spacetime taking? Time is the actor, as the change in time evolves space forward, and changes in the rate of time change density (length in 2 dimensions, if you like) in space. I cannot, on the other hand, see space altering time at all, except where it is concentrated in dense materials where the speed of light is slowed and frequency reduced and I agreed somewhere (I don't think in this thread), that once dilation begins to accrete mass, that mass further slows the process of evolution, adding acceleration to what otherwise would be a steady time dilation gradient.

This is why I love you folks, (except maybe Strange). Chill, Strange, I put it in parentheses, didn't I? You really help me clarify.

[captcass]

1 hour ago, captcass said:

describes the scene,

It is not a "scene". It is relativistic frames of reference based on differences in the relative rates of time. And....we can throw frame dragging in to make the discussion really spicy. All of a sudden I feel like the lead character in the TV show Lucifeer.   

Well, no responses for awhile, so I guess you folk are mostly east coasters. Logic lets me figure that out, by golly, by geese, by gum....... Sleep tight...the continuum will keep evolving forward FOR you even though you are asleep... As improbable as it seems, you will, hopefully, be here in the morning.

 

I have no idea why the moderator has not killed this thread long ago unless, somehow, the moderator sees merit here.

So, good night all, and to all, a good night. I have no doubt the holy Strange will resurrect us, and give us energy, purpose, and new meaning in the morning.

 

[Strange]

6 hours ago, captcass said:

Remove all considerations of mass since GR does not utilize mass

Mass is considered under the energy term, so this is untrue. 

6 hours ago, captcass said:

Visualize the continuum with no mass, just the gravitational time dilation fields

There would be no gravitational time dilation without mass, as can be seen from the Einstein Field Equations. 

6 hours ago, captcass said:

Google light anomalies.

Good grief. You are using people who think they have seen ghosts as your evidence!? There goes any pretence of rationality. 

5 hours ago, captcass said:

Without light, there are no relativistic effects based on the characteristics of light to observe.

Of course there are. Why make all these bizarre claims that you can’t support? They are trivially shown to be wrong. 

5 hours ago, captcass said:

See how many multiple body solutions for GR you can find

There are no 3 body solutions in Newtonian physics either so I don’t see how that is relevant. 

4 hours ago, captcass said:

No they don't. They have nothing to do with GR's field equations which rely totally on differences in the rates of time.

What is the point of lying like that? Anyone can go and look at the equations and see it is not true.  This is like having a discussion with Trump: the facts don’t seem to matter to you. 

[captcass]

Damn, I was just going to bed.....

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Mass is considered under the energy term, so this is untrue. 

As I quote in my paper, Einstein said this is not required under GR. He just includes it as an accommodation to the conservation of energy.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

There would be no gravitational time dilation without mass,

I am just saying imagine it the other way around.......

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

Good grief. You are using people who think they have seen ghosts as your evidence!? There goes any pretence of rationality. 

I am sorry. I have absolutely no idea what this means. I don't get dhost stories Googling that. The biggest anomaly is that the velocity of time is not additive or subtractive from the velocity of the source. I know you know this and think this a BS question.

 

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Of course there are. Why make all these bizarre claims that you can’t support? They are trivially shown to be wrong. 

Without light the effects do not manifest. They are the result of the attributes of light.

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

There are no 3 body solutions in Newtonian physics either so I don’t see how that is relevant

So what? I am talking about 2.

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is the point of lying like that? Anyone can go and look at the equations and see it is not true.  This is like having a discussion with Trump: the facts don’t seem to matter to you. 

Well, now. Who does not understand GR? The field equations are on the left side of the equation. He equates that with the stress-energy-momentum tensor on the right, but notes it is NOT REQUIRED by GR. He adds it to accommodate energy conservation ONLY and people have been debating it's value ever since just like the cosmological constant on the left. And WHY the hell are you calling me a LIAR? WTF moderator? Helllooooo!!!!

And now you are getting political, too? WTF has politics of any sort got to do with any of this?

Ahhh. I get it......booze, right? I don't think it is pot. You are too science orientated. Gotta be da booze....right?

[beecee]

16 hours ago, captcass said:

I am also not going to get into what is ridiculous and what is not, BeeCee. You folks just can't see it. You also lack a proper foundation for a proper understanding because you do not understand what "life" is. That is, again, a discussion you folks don't want to have.

The point is my friend is that when we get down to the nitty gritty of things, you do not have the qualifications or credentials to claim what is or isn't ridiculious in mainstream science. Let me illustrate the point I'm trying to make, and as others have told you...science isn't necessarily after truth or reality...a scientific theory is not meant to be fact, you dismally misquote Einstein, you then finally claim you know mainstream and what you are talking about?  Then put on a pretentious I don't care act" and expect others to drop what they are doing to listen to so called words of wisdom.  And on life, well as far as we can deliberate life is simply a product  of evolution...as the great Carl Sagan put it, we are all star stuff.

Quote

I wouldn't want to get another "-" for "specualtion".

 You seem to want people to believe that your "- " are a badge of honour?

Quote

 

So, sorry folks, that is it for me here. If anyone who has followed any of this and would like to continue in a private fornat, please feel free to email me.

 

Since you appear ignorant of so many basic essentials of cosmology as I listed, and since your guesses have no evidence in any sort of reality, I'll give that a miss if you don't mind.

[Strange]

27 minutes ago, captcass said:

As I quote in my paper, Einstein said this is not required under GR. He just includes it as an accommodation to the conservation of energy.

As I don’t know what Einstein said about this (I only gave your words, which I know are frequently wrong) I can’t really comment. 

However, as energy is conserved, then those terms would be necessary (if that were the reason for them being included). 

27 minutes ago, captcass said:

I am sorry. I have absolutely no idea what this means. I don't get dhost stories Googling that.

And that is the trouble with saying “google it” instead of answering a simple question. All I get is ghosts when I do that. Which just makes you look even more foolish. 

The thing you claim to be an anomaly is what is expected from Maxwells equations. 

27 minutes ago, captcass said:

The field equations are on the left side of the equation.

So we can add the word “equation” to the growing list of things you don’t understand. 

29 minutes ago, captcass said:

but notes it is NOT REQUIRED by GR. He adds it to accommodate energy conservation ONLY

Citation needed. 

30 minutes ago, captcass said:

people have been debating it's value ever since

Citation needed

30 minutes ago, captcass said:

And now you are getting political, too?

Politics? Huh?

If anyone reading wants to get a good idea of what the Einstein Field Equations actually say, there is a great overview which avoids most of the complex math, here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/einstein.html

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

Politics? Huh?

Oh, I see. You think mentioning Trump (for a characteristic that has little to do with his politics) is "political".

[captcass]

7 hours ago, Strange said:

If anyone reading wants to get a good idea of what the Einstein Field Equations actually say,

You can read Einstein's original paper here http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_GRelativity_1916.pdf

7 hours ago, Strange said:

As I don’t know what Einstein said about this

§ 16 of his paper, he says, “It must be admitted, that this introduction of the energy-tensor of matter cannot be justified by means of the Relativity Postulate

[koti]

7 minutes ago, captcass said:

You can read Einstein's original paper here http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_GRelativity_1916.pdf

§ 16 of his paper, he says, “It must be admitted, that this introduction of the energy-tensor of matter cannot be justified by means of the Relativity Postulate

 

 

 

Being clueless and spreading misinformation is one thing but deliberately manipulating quotes into a different meaning and spreading misinformation based on that is a different ballgame. Below is a screenshot of what is actually being stated, lack of that small word "alone" which you deliberately manipulated out of the quote changes the whole meaning of the sentence. You're officially an a** hole.
 

[Strange]

So, as expected he doesn't say that it "is not required" he just says it is not justified by the relativity postulate alone. (Interesting that you left that last word off, it does rather change the emphasis.) As he says, it is required because of the energy in the system (which includes both mass and the energy of the gravitational field).

I'm not sure if you failed to understand what was written or are deliberately misrepresenting it. (But it is yet more evidence that you don't really have a clue.)

And why is it only because of Internet Cranks that I find myself reading Einstein's own words? There are much, much better, and more up to date, sources available.

[captcass]

I read it differently. To me he is saying the postulate does not call for it. He deduces it to satisfy the conservation of energy.

5 minutes ago, koti said:

You're officially an a** hole.

I thought the name calling was banned.