A Time Experiment

[studiot]

Quote

P S Laplace Mechanique Celeste 1799

But if the particle is not forced to move along a determinate curve, the curve which it describes possesses a singular property which has been discovered by metaphysical considerations but is in fact nothing more than the result of the preceding differential equations. It consistes in this that the integral   [math]\int {v.ds} [/math],  comprised between the two extreme points of the described curve, is less than on every other curve.

 

It is not necessary to use tensors to understand geodesics.

[Greg A.]

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I’m beginning to see where it is that you’re stuck, I think. You see, the form of the geodesics themselves is already completely determined by the geometry of the underlying spacetime, which has nothing to do with velocities.

I don't think I'm stuck at all and if anything it is you that has caught up. I mean in all fairness.

Earth's 1.3M mph velocity decides its time frame and that of everything else in its near vicinity. 

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

There are really infinitely many geodesics in any spacetime - this is called its ‘geodesic structure’. So, in order to find the correct geodesic for a given particular situation, you need to specify initial and boundary conditions for the problem. And that’s where velocity comes in - it serves as an initial condition to select the correct geodesic out of all possible ones. It doesn’t actually determine what that geodesic looks like - only the geometry of spacetime does that, and that follows from the presence of sources of energy-momentum.

I can only rely on intuition and don't see how anything you say here is different than what I believe is the situation. 

My understanding's have been forced as 'time' was not a topic I've chosen to take on consequently I've only had barely two weeks to come up with what I believe is how it is. I've not changed my position but have seen the position here change. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

In practice, you start by solving the Einstein equations - you input what and where sources of gravity are, and out comes a description of the geometry of spacetime. For our purposes here you can think of that description as a big bundle of free-fall geodesics - all possible ones for all possible cases, and what each of them looks like is already determined in that description. So, as a second step you need to find and select that one geodesic out of that big bundle that applies to your problem at hand; so you need selection

 

But we are not in free fall and if we were our velocity is so similar to earth it would hardly make any difference that our geodesics did not align with all the others in their parallel converging courses. Even at the equator we would end up near the point of convergence that earth's 1.3M mph represents. 

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

 

criteria. These are your boundary conditions - initial velocity being one of them. But it isn’t a case of velocity determining the geodesic structure of spacetime - it simply helps you find “your” geodesic in an infinite pile of possible ones. The pile itself depends only on the distribution of energy-momentum.

 

We are not in freefall. Gravity is not a force. The apple in the tree is exerting a force of its own, it's not being pulled down, the tension it appears to have on its branch is transferred to the trunk of the tree as a downward (compressive) load as opposed to the apple and the tree both being subject to gravity as a force

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Note that velocity alone isn’t enough though, you need at least one more boundary condition.

It doesn’t. It simply tells you which geodesic is followed, the ‘shape’ of which is already determined by the geometry of spacetime. See above.

Gravity is defined as being geodesic deviation, in GR.

 

This isn't what I've been saying all along?

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

It doesn’t really, it presents only one specific aspect of gravity. And it isn’t a model either, it’s just an analogy.

The rubber sheet visualisation is what is called an ‘embedding diagram’ - the form that’s usually depicted uses Schwarzschild coordinates, and plots changes in the radial coordinate against changes in proper distance. That’s all - it shows just this one relationship. It doesn’t depict the time coordinate, nor the angular coordinates - so you can’t see the tidal components of gravity (or any other gravitational phenomena) in that plot. Generally it also only shows the region outside the central body, and ignores the interior part. You can deduce some of these things from what you see - but that’s only because you are dealing with the simplest of all geometries, Schwarzschild spacetime, which is highly symmetric. For something even slightly more complicated, such as Kerr spacetime, this kind of visualisation fails badly, since you can’t easily deduce any of the other aspects, such as frame dragging.

 

I'm not all that interested in what is the correct discription only that the rubber sheet does not give us a distinction between gravity as some magical property and the curvature of spacetime brought about by the shared velocity of earth's matter as it groups around the common point that is its time factor. 

 

As I've pointed out previously I am not going to get away with making any clear mistakes here at this forum, the absence of many challenges seems to bear this out. And I don't see that what you are saying as being a any real substantial  challenge? That is am I completely wrong?

 

 

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Are you actually aware that in everything you’ve said so far you are tacitly assuming a very specific spacetime geometry, being Schwarzschild? It’s the simplest of all solutions to the Einstein equations - it’s spherically symmetric, static, stationary, asymptotically flat, and depends only on the mass of the central body. This solution is great for academic purposes, since it’s pretty simple and works well as an approximation. But actually, really world gravity is vastly more complicated - it may involve angular momentum, gravitational radiation, sometimes electric charges, non-linear self-interactions, and a whole host of other things. If you account for these, the geometry of spacetime very quickly becomes vastly more complex.

Please don’t think that what you find in Schwarzschild is all there is to gravity. That’s not the case at all.

 

No I'm not aware of that but as my OP was posted in philosophy and (understandably) it has been moved to speculations no one's fault but it does kind of result is a stalemate from my perspective in that because of my  limited understanding of physics I can, if I've added anything, add nothing more. 

 

The experiment can't continue due to the philosophic nature of the prediction being something I can not elaborate on, leading to a predicted catch22 in that what I'm about is fulfilling my duties as an adult to help defend society yet will get caught up in a loop it appears because of the speculative nature of the experiment. 

And if by getting to "Schwarzschild"  I may have established a bit of credibility It's been for nothing. Evil overpowers good yet again? 

Edited July 31, 2022 by Greg A.

[Greg A.]

5 hours ago, studiot said:

It is not necessary to use tensors to understand geodesics.

I'm glad you understand these thing because I sure don't. 

And the point you've made some time back has a relevance to the experiment in that probabilities (that's despite things Bayesian going right over my head) if they are what are in place and there are no actual outcomes present in say one hundred years time then the scenario where we override the philosophical barrier, that there is no logical reason to change Venus's orbit, and then go ahead with a calculated physical approach of putting all of the world's nuclear weapons together in one missile to alter that orbit but then only to find the launch window has been missed due to the blowing of a 10 cent fuse. And, if so, do we put this down to probability or an inevitability factor. There is nothing positive or negative in changing Venus's orbit ( apart from getting rid of nuclear weapons) so it wouldn't matter either way succeed or fail. And there is a high probability of failure for whatever reason, just listen to the tension that builds up in the Apollo 11 launch commentator's voice. 

I can only precede with the experiment by leaving out the prediction I make that's when any other prediction will suffice anyhow, leaving experimentation for experimentation's sake while neglecting my obligation of playing a part in saving the world. 

Are there any suggestions how this thing could continue here at the forum?

Edited July 31, 2022 by Greg A.
Spelling

[Markus Hanke]

5 hours ago, Greg A. said:

I'm not all that interested in what is the correct discription

I’m afraid I’m getting that same impression, so I don’t feel it is worth my while to volunteer any more of my time in this thread.

Good luck.

[Greg A.]

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I’m afraid I’m getting that same impression, so I don’t feel it is worth my while to volunteer any more of my time in this thread.

Good luck.

Okay. If that's your 'out'. I mean picking on my poor choice of words means a lot?

I don't get beaten much but that's not because of any skill on my part but instead that I'm on what I believe is a positive (good) path and that does help (even if I'm set to lose in the end). Thanks for 'volunteering'. 

[Bufofrog]

52 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

I don't get beaten much but that's not because of any skill on my part but instead

You think that refusing to accept that you have a misunderstanding about science is somehow a win for you?  How odd.

[Greg A.]

8 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

You think that refusing to accept that you have a misunderstanding about science is somehow a win for you?  How odd.

Less odd than you believing that you have won despite not one refutation of my understandings coming from your side. How can I be overlooking anything that says I'm wrong. Only if arrogance wins arguments are my adversaries way out in front. 

I'm prepared to accept I'm wrong despite that being a devastating outcome personally if it were to happen. It's still more important that the truth is presented though. And I sure would not like to mislead anyone anyhow. 

My point is that I'd never set out to debate how it is that gravity works, but as that was the direction this took, and I believe I'm being positive, then it's a 'God Effect' that has let me survive this attack. And one that's from those who know a lot more about these things than myself. That is if I'd lost this I'd be so demoralized that my mission would end. My 'faith' would have been devastated.    

[Ghideon]

21 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

How can I be overlooking anything that says I'm wrong

Im still hoping for some relevant answer about about particle decay where your claims are contradicted by scientific observations.

[studiot]

41 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

How can I be overlooking anything that says I'm wrong.

No you are not wrong

Your 'thinking'  is so far out of line with any section of this forum that the old scientific statement

You are not even wrong

applies.

[Greg A.]

On 7/30/2022 at 10:08 PM, Ghideon said:

I don't know how the cat got entangled in this topic so here is my interpretation: Before I read the first post in this thread there were a possibility that the ideas presented were correct / incorrect (similar to the cat being dead / alive before the box is opened in Schrödinger's thought experiment)
Now that I have read the ideas and compared them to documented scientific observations (opened the box / performed an observation Schrödinger's thought experiment) I've found that the presented ideas are wrong. This fact is independent of Copenhagen interpretation, many-worlds interpretation or other variants; the claims regarding time and movement are incorrect and refuted by (for instance) particle decay at absolute zero. This threads state is similar to the cat; if the cat is dead when the box is opened the cat will stay dead until new physics (or, maybe in this case, progress in animal health care & resurrection) emerge. Just as the presented ideas will be stay wrong until supported by discoveries, theories and observations. Attempts to avoid the questions and arguments presented by asking me to "solve" Schrödinger's does not count as scientific evidence. 

 

You don't know that the cat's fate comes down to atomic decay???  The Schrodinger's cat experiment not only highlights the apparent absurdity of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics it also attempts to merge an effect at the quantum level with that of the regular physical world resulting in a cat in an impossible superposition. And what in the world would temperature, or lack of, something very physical, have to do with an action in the quantum world???  So as it is, you still need to solve Schrodinger's Cat despite your denials. My solution, the obvious one by the way, is that the experiment is followed by the decay that is followed by the deceased cat, that is followed by the experiment, that is followed by non-decay, that is followed by a living cat, this satisfying the 50/50 requirement with out any superposition involved. In other words there are no experiments or results (ever) determinism decides everything (that's although events at the quantum level may not allow determinism to be the end all of things). 

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

You don't know that the cat's fate comes down to atomic decay??? 

You don't know, is kinda the point...

[Greg A.]

22 minutes ago, studiot said:

No you are not wrong

Your 'thinking'  is so far out of line with any section of this forum that the old scientific statement

You are not even wrong

applies.

I'm not quite sure what it is you're saying, but get the feeling that's it's that I'm beyond wrong. If so I wish someone would point to just one instance that I am wrong, because let's fact it the person above who fails to connect atomic decay with Schrodinger's cat, yet suggesting temperature could be the deciding factor in the cat's fate manages to refute anything?

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

I'm not quite sure what it is you're saying, but get the feeling that's it's that I'm beyond wrong. If so I wish someone would point to just one instance that I am wrong, because let's fact it the person above who fails to connect atomic decay with Schrodinger's cat, yet suggesting temperature could be the deciding factor in the cat's fate manages to refute anything?

I think we're well past feeding time...

[Greg A.]

35 minutes ago, studiot said:

No you are not wrong

Your 'thinking'  is so far out of line with any section of this forum that the old scientific statement

You are not even wrong

applies.

I've thought about what you are saying in a serious way, and do get your point. But why in so many other non-related ways do I appear to get things right? I mean I've never believed in anything silly like conspiracy theories, Oswald assassinated JFK, the moon landing happened, I've never doubted these events. And is my thinking so bad, I'm human, as you are, so I don't see why I can't visualize something that you have no need to visualize because you already have the math to do what is needed with this.  

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Greg A. said:

I've thought about what you are saying in a serious way, and do get your point. But why in so many other non-related ways do I appear to get things right? I mean I've never believed in anything silly like conspiracy theories, Oswald assassinated JFK, the moon landing happened, I've never doubted these events. And is my thinking so bad, I'm human, as you are, so I don't see why I can't visualize something that you have no need to visualize because you already have the math to do what is needed with this.  

You can never visualise a foreign language until you speak it, fluently; but you can learn... 😉 

[Ghideon]

49 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

You don't know that the cat's fate comes down to atomic decay??? 

I know about Shrödinger's thought experiment. I do not know why you refer to that thought experiment in this case. You made claims about time and movement, which was my reason for asking about the case of 0 K and particle decay as an example. Particle movement (or their kinetic energy) and temperature is related, which one reason it is easy to refute your claims as they were stated.

32 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

I wish someone would point to just one instance that I am wrong, because let's fact it the person above who fails to connect atomic decay with Schrodinger's cat, yet suggesting temperature could be the deciding factor in the cat's fate manages to refute anything?

You added the cat to the discussion after earlier claims were found to be wrong. They are still wrong.

[Bufofrog]

2 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Less odd than you believing that you have won despite not one refutation of my understandings coming from your side.

I guess that is your problem in a nut shell.  This site is not about winning anything, this site is about understanding and learning about science.  Your conjectures have been refuted and if refusing to acknowledge that means you 'won', then I guess all I can say is congratulations. 

[zapatos]

I have really enjoyed the learning experience (for me) in this thread and thank everyone for their patient and well thought out replies to the OP. This kind of thread is exactly why I came to this site; you've presented very difficult subjects in a manageable manner for a lay person like me. 

Gracias!! 😁

[Phi for All]

13 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Are there any suggestions how this thing could continue here at the forum?

!

Moderator Note

If learning mainstream physics is out of the question for you, then I don't think we can continue. For some reason, you don't even recognize the refutations you've gotten regarding your arguments, and continue to think you're "beating" us because nobody can tell you why you're wrong. That's a big problem, because you don't know enough science to understand why it's important to know more science. You claim you aren't interested in accuracy, you claim being wrong would be devastating to you, and you claim that your intuition is better than learning mainstream knowledge. All of this means you'll get nothing from science discussion. You just aren't listening to anything that doesn't make immediate sense to you, or contradicts the stuff you've made up.

Thread closed, don't bring this up in other threads, because you certainly didn't convince anyone of anything.