Gravity why reinvent it?

[jajrussel]

I have come to the realization that I have been thinking in my position on the train, that my observation of the apple, or ball, is not only accurate, but the most real. It is not.

 

The relative position, or the observer on the dock has the more real view.

 

On the train my calculation of time and distance is wrong, well the answer is, because the distance is wrong. If my perception of distance is wrong then my perception is the least accurate of the two positions. I have neglected to account for the fact that time is more than an up and down measure. Relativity is about motion. On the train I haven't accounted for all of the apples motion. The apple is not only going up and down it is going side to side, and it is following a curve. If on the train I account for this then my answer agrees with the observers.

 

At this point if I assume that there is some kind of time warp between me and the observer and make another adjustment for this warp spoken of, our answers will no longer agree. It seems to me that this warping is an illusion of observation.

 

When you transit from special relativity to general relativity there is a slight warping of motion, but that is due to a change in velocity. I have to toss the apple up faster than the downward acceleration of gravity. This changes the shape of the curved path the apple is following.

 

If we move the train station to the moon most of the numbers change. It will take longer for the apple to go up, and come down. I have to toss the apple more softly so that it only rises one meter. The total distance of the cycle increases. Every thing else would seem to be the same.

 

Do we adjust our watches for the different gravitational acceleration, or does this happen automatically?

Edited February 21, 2016 by jajrussel

[swansont]

I have come to the realization that I have been thinking in my position on the train, that my observation of the apple, or ball, is not only accurate, but the most real. It is not.

 

The relative position, or the observer on the dock has the more real view.

 

On the train my calculation of time and distance is wrong, well the answer is, because the distance is wrong. If my perception of distance is wrong then my perception is the least accurate of the two positions. I have neglected to account for the fact that time is more than an up and down measure. Relativity is about motion. On the train I haven't accounted for all of the apples motion. The apple is not only going up and down it is going side to side, and it is following a curve. If on the train I account for this then my answer agrees with the observers.

This is all contrary to physics. Neither view is more real than the other. There is no test you can do to show that. The physics for each frame is exactly the same.

 

At this point if I assume that there is some kind of time warp between me and the observer and make another adjustment for this warp spoken of, our answers will no longer agree. It seems to me that this warping is an illusion of observation.

Not an illusion. You can actually measure it.

 

When you transit from special relativity to general relativity there is a slight warping of motion, but that is due to a change in velocity. I have to toss the apple up faster than the downward acceleration of gravity. This changes the shape of the curved path the apple is following.

No. "toss the apple up faster than the downward acceleration of gravity" is nonsense. You are comparing a speed to an acceleration. Any vertical speed imparted to the apple will cause it to go up.

 

If we move the train station to the moon most of the numbers change. It will take longer for the apple to go up, and come down. I have to toss the apple more softly so that it only rises one meter. The total distance of the cycle increases. Every thing else would seem to be the same.

 

Do we adjust our watches for the different gravitational acceleration, or does this happen automatically?

We have to adjust our watches for different gravitational potentials, not the acceleration.

[jajrussel]

This is all contrary to physics. Neither view is more real than the other. There is no test you can do to show that. The physics for each frame is exactly the same.

 

(When you say that the physics for each frame is exactly same,this is exactly what I thought I was implying. Are you saying that I should not account for the momentum simply because my observation is that the apple is going straight up,and down? Is not accounting for the momentum good physics? Perhaps the term more real added a sense of metaphysics that I did not mean to imply. If I know the train is moving how do I justify not accounting for its movement?)

 

Not an illusion. You can actually measure it.

 

(What am I measuring? )

 

No. "toss the apple up faster than the downward acceleration of gravity" is nonsense. You are comparing a speed to an acceleration. Any vertical speed imparted to the apple will cause it to go up.

 

(You are right about the acceleration. I thought about it, but people have a habit of replying while I am in the midst of editing, so i decided to wait and see how I would be corrected.

 

As for the upward speed, there is an upward force on the apple while it rest in my hand. In order for the apple to go up the upward force has to exceed the downward force, you can call it what you want. My thinking was that if I graphed the motionthat there would be a distinction of curvature showing where the apple was going up, but now I am not certain that the distinction should show up, because the downward force is slowing the apple down as soon as it leaves my hand,so the curvature might remain the same throughout the apples motion.)

 

 

We have to adjust our watches for different gravitational potentials, not the acceleration.

Where does the potential come from?

 

I am not trying to be difficult here. I have been trying to understand why one person should age differently than another for a long time. It is become like religion, there is too much magic in it.

 

I tried to answer each section of your statement. I am not sure if I did it in the proper method. If I did it wrong I am sorry.

 

Apparently I did it wrong. (Some of my response ended up within your quote. )

Edited February 21, 2016 by jajrussel

[Janus]

Where does the potential come from?

From being at different heights in the gravitational field. The difference in potential is related to the energy it takes to move from one height to another. This means you can be at different potentials even if the local accelerations due to gravity are the same. If you imagine a uniform gravity field (one where the strength of gravity does not change with height), and put two clocks at different heights in it, they will be at different potentials and if the two clocks compare their rates they will note that the lower clock runs slower. This is despite the fact that each clock feels exactly the same force of gravity.

I am not trying to be difficult here. I have been trying to understand why one person should age differently than another for a long time. It is become like religion, there is too much magic in it.

Why? When it comes down to it, it is no more "magic" than the fact that in Newtonian Physics two clocks anywhere in the universe run at the same rate with no physical connection between them. Newtonian Physics treats time as universal and Relativity treats it as not being so. Neither concept is any more "magical" than the other.

I tried to answer each section of your statement. I am not sure if I did it in the proper method. If I did it wrong I am sorry.

 

Apparently I did it wrong.

 

[jajrussel]

From being at different heights in the gravitational field. The difference in potential is related to the energy it takes to move from one height to another. This means you can be at different potentials even if the local accelerations due to gravity are the same. If you imagine a uniform gravity field (one where the strength of gravity does not change with height), and put two clocks at different heights in it, they will be at different potentials and if the two clocks compare their rates they will note that the lower clock runs slower. This is despite the fact that each clock feels exactly the same force of gravity.

Does a clock at high altitude feel the same force as a clock at sea legal? Using the inverse square is that what the numbers say? Doesn't the lower clock run slower because being closer to a much more massive system the smaller system that is the clock has to work harder to overcome the forces acting on it? Okay, maybe the last question sounds silly. What I mean is that the lower clock has greater mass, it components should require more energy to move. It shouldn't matter if we are taking about a spring, a gear, or what ever. Is this thought wrong?

[swansont]

Does a clock at high altitude feel the same force as a clock at sea legal? Using the inverse square is that what the numbers say? Doesn't the lower clock run slower because being closer to a much more massive system the smaller system that is the clock has to work harder to overcome the forces acting on it? Okay, maybe the last question sounds silly. What I mean is that the lower clock has greater mass, it components should require more energy to move. It shouldn't matter if we are taking about a spring, a gear, or what ever. Is this thought wrong?

Yes, it's wrong.

 

It's not an issue of forces; clocks capable of measuring this effect aren't sensitive to such perturbations.

[Janus]

Does a clock at high altitude feel the same force as a clock at sea legal? Using the inverse square is that what the numbers say? Doesn't the lower clock run slower because being closer to a much more massive system the smaller system that is the clock has to work harder to overcome the forces acting on it? Okay, maybe the last question sounds silly. What I mean is that the lower clock has greater mass, it components should require more energy to move. It shouldn't matter if we are taking about a spring, a gear, or what ever. Is this thought wrong?

Neither the time difference in the clocks predicted by GR or the time difference actually measured show any dependence on the forces experienced by the clocks.

For instance,GR predicts that due to gravitational time dilation, a clock sitting on the surface of Uranus would run slower than one sitting on the surface of the Earth, but the force of gravity on the surface of Uranus is less than that at the surface of the Earth. Now while we have not actually put a clock on Uranus and compared it to one on the Earth, we can still test the equation that makes this prediction under other conditions. For example we can put radio-isotopes in a high speed centrifuge and test whether the forces placed on it have any effect on the decay rate. Such tests have been done and show no such effect takes place. We can put clocks at different altitudes and check their relative time rates to see whether they differ by a factor that depends on their potential difference as predicted by GR or by a difference in the gravity force them.

 

You know, you keep saying that you want to learn about these things, but you keep balking anytime the explanation isn't to your liking.

[jajrussel]

Neither the time difference in the clocks predicted by GR or the time difference actually measured show any dependence on the forces experienced by the clocks.

For instance,GR predicts that due to gravitational time dilation, a clock sitting on the surface of Uranus would run slower than one sitting on the surface of the Earth, but the force of gravity on the surface of Uranus is less than that at the surface of the Earth. Now while we have not actually put a clock on Uranus and compared it to one on the Earth, we can still test the equation that makes this prediction under other conditions. For example we can put radio-isotopes in a high speed centrifuge and test whether the forces placed on it have any effect on the decay rate. Such tests have been done and show no such effect takes place. We can put clocks at different altitudes and check their relative time rates to see whether they differ by a factor that depends on their potential difference as predicted by GR or by a difference in the gravity force them.

 

You know, you keep saying that you want to learn about these things, but you keep balking anytime the explanation isn't to your liking.

Thank you and everyone else who has replied?

 

I have some more math to learn and two more questions.

 

Does the test increase the Radio isotopes mass, sufficiently, in a manner simular to gravity?

 

Is time the clock, or a mathematical coordinate of position?

 

One more thing, it is my inability to understand that causes me to balk. It is like being told it is okay to take a step yet all I see to step onto is empty space. I'm sorry if it seems like anything more.

 

I have realized that the second question may seem odd. I've asked it because it seems to me that if space can change shape, and I have two or more clocks each effected by the system they exist in each could identify a coordinate position that is the same mathematically, yet not occupy the same space. This is just a thought that occurred to me, and for now this is the best I can explain the thought. This would seem to lead to another question. Would they share a connection that would appear to be an instantaneous effect across distance? This is also expressed the best I can explain.

Edited February 22, 2016 by jajrussel

[jajrussel]

Todays another day and I have had time to think. I am going to accept the fact that people can age at different rates. My ammo wasn't very high quality to begin with, and now I've pretty much used it all.

 

I have also realized that there are some rules of physics that I wasn't aware of, such as the intermingling of different time frames.

 

To the moderators, I am still going to have to ask questions. Please don't assume that a question past this point is my way of trying to bring a dead horse back to life. I actually understand the concept of time dilation, so switching sides shouldn't be that difficult for me. If there is a way to put this thread to bed, please do. Thanks.

 

And Janus, thanks for your patience.

[Mordred]

I'm going to reward a +1 to that response. Time dilation is a tricky subject to accept.

[swansont]

Asking questions is not a problem. The issue that comes up is when someone decides to lecture based on their lack of understanding.