Gravity Explained

[swansont]

 

So, it hasn't been shot down. Thank you. All this mud I'm seeing won't bring it down either. I thought I had addressed the transverse c contention. Nevertheless let me reiterate: my tranverse c measurement in my frame will always be 300,000km/s. But if I undergo time dilation, my 300,000km/s is not the same as yours. We know this because on my return we counted and compared traverses. You try to explain the difference by saying my light in my frame travelled a longer path in your "preferred" frame. But you're missing the obvious - my time dilation occured because my c was less than yours, in my frame, and it defines my time so I can't measure a lesser value. Think ontologically. Ask yourself what you'd see if you could view the time-dilated me via some magical instant TV camera.

 

Time doesn't dilate in your own frame. There is no "my" dilation. You are mixing frames, which you had admonished others not to do.

 

Any frame is valid. By telling me I can't make the measurement in my frame, you are making your frame a preferred frame.

[Farsight]

Swansont, I know all that, and it's not me mixing frames, it's you. Let me see if I can explain it another way:

 

Imagine you and I are standing in a lab, each with a transverse metre rule and a light clock. I go out of the door and you stand there for seven years counting traverses. You count seven trillion traverses. Then I walk back in.

 

You know something is up because my hair is still brown whilst yours is speckled with white. I don't have the extra wrinkles, and my beard is only down to my chest. You wonder if I've been somehow frozen, but then I show you my results, vindicated by recordings and other evidence that satisfies you that I am sincere. Now to ensure that there is no confusion regarding frames: you do not know what I have done and you do not know whether I have travelled.

 

I counted only one trillion traverses, far less than your seven trilion traverses. I also demonstrate to your satisfaction that whilst I was away I measured the speed of light to be 300,000km/s. You similarly measured the speed of light to be 300,000km/s, and you show me your evidence to my satisfaction.

 

But I counted only one trillion traverses whilst you counted seven trillion traverses. Ergo despite the fact that we measured c to be tha same, it was not. It was different.

[YT2095]

it maybe that `c` is a constant whereas Velocity is not!

[swansont]

I also demonstrate to your satisfaction that whilst I was away I measured the speed of light to be 300,000km/s

 

I don't accept this part. You need to actually demonstrate to my satisfaction how you would do this. I want to know what you measured while you were undergoing an acceleration, because I think you don't get c — you can't just state without proof that you did. And if you went away and came back, you must have undergone an acceleration.

[Farsight]

Let's say that I have a videotape that lasts a year, where you can see the running time along with me holding up my transverse metre rule and counting traverses. I appear normal, you have no evidence of any acceleration, and no information about whether I've taken a long journey into space or stepped into some "gravity machine".

[swansont]

Let's say that I have a videotape that lasts a year, where you can see the running time along with me holding up my transverse metre rule and counting traverses. I appear normal, you have no evidence of any acceleration, and no information about whether I've taken a long journey into space or stepped into some "gravity machine".

 

And let's say I have a perpetual motion machine. Once you postulate something that violates the laws of physics, you can conclude anything you want. But it has no validity.

 

I will have evidence of acceleration, because acceleration is not relative. At some point you will transition into a non-inertial reference frame, and your measurements will change.

[Farsight]

I haven't violated the laws of physics. It's a very simple, very basic scanario. You just don't know what I've been doing or where I've been. But you do know that I was away for a year of my time while you waited for seven years of your time. And light defines time. What does that tell you about our respective cs?

[swansont]

I haven't violated the laws of physics.

 

If you have accelerated, there will be evidence of it. Claiming otherwise is a violation.

[Farsight]

You have no evidence of it. I stepped out the room and did something unknown to you that meant my time lasted one year whilst yours lasted seven. I say light travelled one light year whilst you say light travelled seven light years. Come on Swanson, what does this mean for c? I can't make it any simpler.

[swansont]

You have no evidence of it. I stepped out the room and did something unknown to you that meant my time lasted one year whilst yours lasted seven. I say light travelled one light year whilst you say light travelled seven light years. Come on Swanson, what does this mean for c? I can't make it any simpler.

 

You keep moving the goalposts. A few posts back you said you have evidence of your measurements — e.g. the videotape that lasts a year. Now you say that everything is unknown. And that still doesn't address the original mistakes in the first post, which messed up the frames of reference.

 

No matter.

 

Under the condition that I don't know what happened, I conclude that your clock ran slow compared to mine. There is absolutely no other conclusion that can be drawn, since I have no more information.

 

Under the condition that I have complete access to your records, I will find anomalies in the data where you accelerated. It's not like any of this is secret. There are many valid explanations of the twin paradox on the net, and they all point out it's what happens during the change from one inertial frame to the other that accounted for the time change. You can't state that you did measurements of measuring c to be the correct value, because it's flat-out wrong. You will not, in general, get the right value in an accelerating frame.

[Farsight]

No, no goalpost shifting here. You have the videotape. It shows me sitting there with my metre rule lightclock, for a whole year, with a running timestamp in the bottom corner. There's a little action at the start of the tape and at the end, where you feature. You just don't know where I've been or what I've done. That's deliberate, to avoid any confusion about frames.

[Edtharan]

No, no goalpost shifting here. You have the videotape. It shows me sitting there with my metre rule lightclock, for a whole year, with a running timestamp in the bottom corner. There's a little action at the start of the tape and at the end, where you feature. You just don't know where I've been or what I've done. That's deliberate, to avoid any confusion about frames.

Actually what you have done is deliberately hid information. By not providing all the relevant information we can not come to the correct result.

 

It is a bit like having the equation:

A+B=C

Where A=5

 

And then giving us a value for A (without giving us the value for B) and telling us to calculate C.

 

By deliberately hiding the fact that you accelerated (that is even though we know that you did, even though all we can use for this thought experiment is what is on the tape), we can not complete the equations.

 

If you give us that piece of information, then there is no problem and there is then no need for a variable value of C.

 

The changing of a reference frame is very important to relativity. Most of GR deals with changing reference frames. IF you wish to just too out this vitally relevant information (that is violate the laws of physics) then of course you will not get the correct results. But all you end up really doing is constructing a strawman argument as you are not arguing against what really is occuring, but you own made up version of it.

 

You have no evidence of it. I stepped out the room and did something unknown to you that meant my time lasted one year whilst yours lasted seven. I say light travelled one light year whilst you say light travelled seven light years. Come on Swanson, what does this mean for c? I can't make it any simpler.

But then what you have done is deliberately removed an important piece of information. What you do is very important as it is precisely that which is what is under question.

 

It is a bit like saying: "You can ask me anything about carrots, as long as you don't ask a question that has anything to do with vegetables".

 

You are saying: "You can ask me anything about what my clock did, as long as you don't ask me what that clock was doing."

 

Let's say that I have a videotape that lasts a year, where you can see the running time along with me holding up my transverse metre rule and counting traverses. I appear normal, you have no evidence of any acceleration, and no information about whether I've taken a long journey into space or stepped into some "gravity machine".

We do not deny that locally you see time running the same. But it is not you local frame of reference we are interested in. It is the differences between your frame of reference and ours.

 

But let us assume that we also have a camera looking at you (with a really good telescope). Both cameras are left running the whole time. But you would see you clock running slow on our camera, but you would see your clock running normally on your camera.

 

You can even check them. They would have been running at the exact same frame rate, so you can even just count the frames.

 

But yet there is still a difference in them. Time has run slower for you.

 

Also lets have you have a camera pointing back at us (lets have the two cameras pointing at each other so we can see if anybody tampers with them). You can see our time running faster than yours.

 

You can see it happening.

 

Imagine you and I are standing in a lab, each with a transverse metre rule and a light clock. I go out of the door and you stand there for seven years counting traverses. You count seven trillion traverses. Then I walk back in.

 

You know something is up because my hair is still brown whilst yours is speckled with white. I don't have the extra wrinkles, and my beard is only down to my chest.

But that situation would not occur if all you did was go out the door and wait for seven years. Of course, if you accelerated away and then came back that is a completely different scenario.

 

If you did exactly what you describe you did, then your time would be exactly the same as mine. You would measure 7 years to my 7 years.

[swansont]

No, no goalpost shifting here. You have the videotape. It shows me sitting there with my metre rule lightclock, for a whole year, with a running timestamp in the bottom corner. There's a little action at the start of the tape and at the end, where you feature. You just don't know where I've been or what I've done. That's deliberate, to avoid any confusion about frames.

 

"Frames" is the crux of the argument here. By avoiding it you are sweeping all of the details under the rug.

[Farsight]

Actually what you have done is deliberately hid information. By not providing all the relevant information we can not come to the correct result.

I've tried to simplify matters enough for you to grasp them.

 

By deliberately hiding the fact that you accelerated (that is even though we know that you did, even though all we can use for this thought experiment is what is on the tape), we can not complete the equations. If you give us that piece of information, then there is no problem and there is then no need for a variable value of C.

If I told you that I'd accelerated to .99c, you would assert that light had travelled a far greater distance in your preferred frame. You might not appreciate it, but this is creating an aether to maintain your axiom that says c is constant.

 

The changing of a reference frame is very important to relativity. Most of GR deals with changing reference frames. IF you wish to just too out this vitally relevant information (that is violate the laws of physics) then of course you will not get the correct results. But all you end up really doing is constructing a strawman argument as you are not arguing against what really is occuring, but you own made up version of it.

Straw man? Made up? Oh that's enough Edtharan.

[Farsight]

"Frames" is the crux of the argument here. By avoiding it you are sweeping all of the details under the rug.

 

No, I'm avoiding frames because they're at the root of your confusion. You have to step back from these frames and look at what's happening in much simpler terms. For me, light travelled one light year. For you, it travelled seven. The crux of it it is that light defines time, and if the time experienced is different, the speed of light must have been different too. If there's time dilation, there's a difference in c, but you always measure 300,000km/s, just like you always measure sixteen ounces to the pound, even on the moon. Your light defines your time. And that's the crux of GRAVITY EXPLAINED. It is just so simple.

[swansont]

So your video of all the tests you run show the atomic spectrum tests, which depend on the fine structure constant (proportional to c), work normally, showing no change in spectrum. And also your nuclear generator, which depends on c^2, has generated the expected amount of power.

[Farsight]

Yep. It's a scale change. You're in it, you can't see it. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame. The postulate is still good. You need something like Pound-Rebka to know something's changing.

[foodchain]

No, I'm avoiding frames because they're at the root of your confusion. You have to step back from these frames and look at what's happening in much simpler terms. For me, light travelled one light year. For you, it travelled seven. The crux of it it is that light defines time, and if the time experienced is different, the speed of light must have been different too. If there's time dilation, there's a difference in c, but you always measure 300,000km/s, just like you always measure sixteen ounces to the pound, even on the moon. Your light defines your time. And that's the crux of GRAVITY EXPLAINED. It is just so simple.

 

What if the clocks are not running slow, it just takes so long for the information to travel x distance.

[swansont]

Yep. It's a scale change. You're in it, you can't see it. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame. The postulate is still good. You need something like Pound-Rebka to know something's changing.

 

Then c isn't changing.

[Edtharan]

I've tried to simplify matters enough for you to grasp them.

We are all quite bright here, so there is no need for you to simplify. In fact, you seem to have oversimplified and that is the source of your error (or at least the error in your explanation of what is happening).

 

A few years ago, I used to have a job where I had to explain science concepts (some quite difficult) to ordinary people (those without scientific backgrounds). Over simplification (and the use of too many analogies) would only serve to create more misunderstandings.

 

What I had to do was build a frame work on which we could communicate on. We needed a common ground. IF you can develop this framework then you can explain almost anything (even an understanding of music to the deaf - which I have done ).

 

With the music thing, if I had just used the simplification of music being like waves at a beach, that does not really help with an understanding of music.

 

This would be a case of over simplification (I used vibrations of string to explain different frequencies, then use coloured lights to explain how we can perceive different frequencies and then use a painting to explain how the different frequencies of sound combine together to produce an aesthetic composition).

 

If I told you that I'd accelerated to .99c, you would assert that light had travelled a far greater distance in your preferred frame.

No. Under relativity there is no preferred frame. Why are you claiming that we have included one when we haven't?

 

You see in your frame of reference you would see our time accelerated and we would see your time slowed. Two frames of reference.

 

If we leave out one (the fact that you accelerated) then we are only left with a single frame of reference.

 

So in effect, by this thought experiment, you have in fact demonstrated that without accounting for all the frames of reference, you end up with strange results.

 

Congratulations: That is what we have been trying to explain for quite some time to you.

 

By forcing us to leave out a frame of reference (your accelerating frame) you have actually forced a preferred frame of reference onto us. No wonder our results are all strange.

 

Straw man? Made up? Oh that's enough Edtharan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

Really. Read it.

 

You have misrepresented current theories by forcing a situation that does not give it enough data. That my friend is a strawman.

 

You have a "picture" in your mind about what occurs under currently accepted theories. But when we have told you (repeatedly) that your understanding of those same theories is flawed, you dismiss us.

 

Your arguments that you have built up against current theories are based on a false understanding of those theories.

 

I am assuming that you have had access to information about the current theories of Time and Gravity and Space, that you have had some tutelage (even if just from a popular science book) about this subject. However, you have come to an understanding that is different to what these actually are. If these sources didn't give you this incorrect understanding, then it must have come from you. Therefore: You made them up (even if it was through ignorance).

[Farsight]

We are all quite bright here, so there is no need for you to simplify. In fact, you seem to have oversimplified and that is the source of your error...

 

What error? That time travel is bunk? Don't pretend you've found some error of mine, Edtharan. You haven't. And repeating the pretence won't make it real.

 

No. Under relativity there is no preferred frame. Why are you claiming that we have included one when we haven't?

 

Because you insist that c is constant, and to do that you will insist that light travelled further in the "time dilation" thought-experiment I described to Swanson.

 

So in effect, by this thought experiment, you have in fact demonstrated that without accounting for all the frames of reference, you end up with strange results. Congratulations: That is what we have been trying to explain for quite some time to you.

 

You've explained zip, Edtharan. Your only justification for the axioms you hold dear has been the dogmatic repetition of those very axioms themselves.

 

By forcing us to leave out a frame of reference (your accelerating frame) you have actually forced a preferred frame of reference onto us. No wonder our results are all strange.

 

Sadly I've been unable to make you leave out your preferred reference frame. The simple fact is that I'm away for a year whilst seven years elapse for Swanson means light travelled one light year for me and seven light years for you, which means c is different. I just can't make it any simpler.

 

You have misrepresented current theories by forcing a situation that does not give it enough data. That my friend is a strawman.

 

I do not misrepresent. I do not use Strawman arguments. And I explained straw man to you, remember?

 

Your arguments that you have built up against current theories are based on a false understanding of those theories. I am assuming that you have had access to information about the current theories of Time and Gravity and Space, that you have had some tutelage (even if just from a popular science book) about this subject. However, you have come to an understanding that is different to what these actually are. If these sources didn't give you this incorrect understanding, then it must have come from you. Therefore: You made them up (even if it was through ignorance).

 

Theories like Time is a Length Edtharan? You have no understanding of time, or gravity, and when I offer you a total understanding of these things, you reject it all, like some religious acolyte, stooping to dishonesty to avoid an open-minded discussion. How can you sleep at night?

 

You won't be able to sleep at night when you find out I'm right.

[swansont]

Sadly I've been unable to make you leave out your preferred reference frame. The simple fact is that I'm away for a year whilst seven years elapse for Swanson means light travelled one light year for me and seven light years for you, which means c is different. I just can't make it any simpler.

 

———

 

I do not misrepresent. I do not use Strawman arguments.

 

Damn. My irony meter just melted.

[insane_alien]

you should have used the industrial one on the super-luminal spaceship.

[Edtharan]

you reject it all, like some religious acolyte, stooping to dishonesty

You know what. I am totally sick of your insults. I have asked repeatedly for you to not make these kinds of statements. This is not only and Ad hominin, it is also a strawman at the same time.

 

1) I am not stooping to dishonesty" if this is what I really do understand the world to be like. Dishonesty is lying. If I say this is my understanding, and it wasn't how I understood things, THEN I would be lying. THEN I would be dishonest.

 

2) I am not "Rejecting it all, like some religious acolyte". I am rejecting it because I see flaws in your understanding of the principals that you are using as a basis of your essay. You have not even shown a proper understanding of the theories that you are rejecting. You just keep repeating again and again "Your understating is wrong because I am right" (Talk about you axiomatic repetitions).

 

You offer no examples where your essay would produce the correct results and current theories would produce incorrect ones. The ones you have used, when we have corrected your conclusions of current theories you reject those corrections (and thus you have really constructed strawman arguments against current theories as you are not really arguing against current theories, but only your flawed understanding of them).

 

What error?

Your repeated misunderstanding and incorrect conclusions based on current theories. That is the error you keep making and when we attempt to correct you, you have the nerve to tell us that we are deliberately lying to you (or what else do you mean by "Dishonesty").

 

That time travel is bunk?

That would be true, if your essay is correct. But as our augments are that you have based your arguments against current theories on an erroneous understanding and flawed conclusions from them, it means that your arguments that you have put forward are not usable.

 

Time travel might be "Bunk", but it would be for other reasons than what you have argued (because they are based on an incorrect understanding of current theories).

 

Don't pretend you've found some error of mine, Edtharan. You haven't.

I have. The arguments you have been using against current theories are flawed. They are based on an incorrect understanding and incorrect conclusions using current theories.

 

These misunderstandings are the initial premises that you have used to base your essay on. No matter how flawless you logic is, if you start from a flawed premise, you will reach incorrect results.

 

And repeating the pretence won't make it real.

But may be it will make you listen (but from your history, here, not likely).

 

Because you insist that c is constant, and to do that you will insist that light travelled further in the "time dilation" thought-experiment I described to Swanson.

And your problem being?

 

Experiments and observations have shown that both time and space can be stretched and distorted (or at least act like they do). Is it too far a jump that space and time have been observed to distort and "rotate" between each other to that time and space can be distorted (as that is what has been observed)?

 

We have never seen any observation that could indicate that the speed of light is variable (and your essay's state that we can never observe it).

 

So, your essays state that C is variable but is never measured to be variable. Occam's razor then states that we can eliminate there being a variable value of C. So unless your new theories can produce results that will differ from what current theories do, it make no sense to include a term in the equations that has no effect on the outcomes of experiments.

 

If you do know of any situation that would produce differing results, then post up your conclusions about your own theories. As you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of current theory, you can forgo attempting to reach conclusions from them. Just stick to your own theories.

 

You've explained zip

No, we have explained a lot. You just haven't listened.

 

Your only justification for the axioms you hold dear has been the dogmatic repetition of those very axioms themselves.

Nope. You are wrong here. We have used experiments (both thought experiments and real experiments) to support our positions. We have shown where you have misunderstood current theories and so reached incorrect results form them.

 

These are our justifications. Where are yours? Oh yes right: "you reject it all, like some religious acolyte, stooping to dishonesty", and "You have no understanding of time, or gravity, and when I offer you a total understanding of these things". I forgot.

 

Science is not about total understanding. Science knows that we can never have a total understanding. It is the religious types that tend to offer "Total Understanding". And yet, you claim that it is us that are the religious types.

 

Sadly I've been unable to make you leave out your preferred reference frame.

And just what is that preferred frame of reference. In all our explanations of this scenario we have always looked at the situation from both your position and Swansont's. You keep insisting we can only use Swansont's position. Who then is using a preferred frame: The ones who consider all relevant frames or the person who insist on only using one?

 

The simple fact is that I'm away for a year whilst seven years elapse for Swanson means light travelled one light year for me and seven light years for you, which means c is different.

Based on that scenario you presented? No, that is not the only conclusion you can draw. If you used current theories of a distortable Time and Space, then your Time has been slowed down (as we know that we haven't undergone acceleration).

 

So this entirely fails as an argument against current understanding and theories. It does not point to a situation where current theory fails. But as experiments have actually been done that actually produce a result that matches this, it puts this as an argument for current theories and is really a counter argument for your essay.

 

In these experiments, because they were using an atomic clock, a variable C should have shown up in the frequency of the emitted photons, or as a change in the timing of the "ticks" of the clock (as measured locally for both of these). But, as neither of these were observed, C could not have changed. The only other explanation is that Time was really running slower on the accelerating clock.

 

However, if you keep insisting that a variable C can never be detected in a situation that rules out a variable Time/Space, then this is not really admissible as a counter augment against established theory and the justification of yours (and if that is the case, then why are you insisting on defending this as an argument).

 

I do not misrepresent.

WTF

 

You have misrepresented me on many occasions b y using Ad Hominin arguments. You have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of understanding of current theories and when corrected, you reject those corrections and keep using your misunderstandings (the fact that you keep reusing these misunderstandings is then your misrepresentations).

 

I do not use Strawman arguments.

Yes you do:

The crux of it it is that light defines time

Light does not define time. Period. We use light to measure time, but it definitely does not define it.

 

A meter ruler does not define a meter. A meter is a portion of space. The ruler just allows us to measure that portion of space.

 

I have said this many, many times: The thing you use to measure something is not the thing you are measuring.

 

We measure time using pulses of light. Those pulses of light Are not Time. Plain and simple. I have said this before and you should be able to understand that simple concept.

 

The fact that you keep using it as an argument against current theories, when it is nothing to do with what current theories understand time as makes any argument of yours that uses that a Strawman.

 

You also have your own definitions of various scientific and mathematical concepts like Dimensions, Time, Motion and such, that is not the same as currently accepted scientific and mathematical definitions of them. If you are using your own definitions as targets for argument, then they are Strawmen.

 

I know what a Strawman is. I have linked to websites with definitions of it. I have read about it and have a good understanding of logic (I used to be a computer programmer - so formal logic is easy for me to understand as are logic errors).

 

The fact is. You are suing a definition as a basis of your arguments against current theories, however, that definition is not accepted by what you are arguing against. That by definition is a Strawman.

 

Do you understand now why I keep repeating that your arguments are based on a Strawman?

 

Theories like Time is a Length Edtharan?

Well, if current observations are to be believed, then yes, Time is a length.

 

Think of it like this: Light travels at a finite speed (whether it is a variable speed or not is irrelevant) and nothing can travel faster than light. So, it must take a finite and non zero amount of Time for light to get to point B from point A.

 

So, you can use the distance that light has travelled to mark out a period of time (and remember, what we use to measure is not the thing we are measuring).

 

You could also say that Time is a measure of Periods. But you can also say that distance is a measure of Periods.

 

I am not going to argue the semantics of what the word "Length" means. What I will argue is that Time is as physically real as Space.

[Klaynos]

Edtharan and swansont, I congratulate your responses to this thread, I have long ago given up.