Study finds possible alternative explanation for dark energy

December 30, 2014 by Alan Flurry, University of Georgia
Edward Kipreos

(Phys.org)—Dark energy is an unknown form of energy that is proposed to drive the accelerated expansion of the universe. A new study by University of Georgia professor Edward Kipreos suggests that changes in how people think about time dilation—the slowing of time predicted by Albert Einstein—can provide an alternate explanation of dark energy.

In the recent Hollywood film "Interstellar," a team of scientists travel through a wormhole in space to access planets with promising conditions to sustain life on Earth. One of the issues the team must grapple with is : each hour spent collecting data on a given planet is equal to seven years on Earth.

Einstein's general theory of relativity indicates that time dilation in response to gravity is directional in that an object in high gravity will have slower time than an object in low gravity. In contrast, Einstein's describes reciprocal time dilation between two moving objects, such that both moving objects' times appear to be slowed down relative to each other.

The new paper makes the case that instead of being reciprocal, time dilation in response to movement is directional, with only the moving object undergoing time dilation.

The study, "Implication of an Absolute Simultaneity Theory for Cosmology and Universe Acceleration," was published Dec. 23 in the journal PLOS ONE.

A molecular geneticist whose lab works on cell cycle regulation, Kipreos became interested in cosmology and the theory of special relativity several years ago. He says the phenomenon can be easily understood in the context of how Global Positioning System satellites work.

"The satellites, which travel in free-fall reference frames, are moving fast enough, in relation to the Earth, that you have to correct for their time being slowed down, based on their speed," he said. "If we didn't correct for that, then the satellites' GPS measurement would be off by a factor of two kilometers per day."

This simple example—GPS satellites sending out the time, which is then detected back on Earth, where the distance between the two is measured—is based on the theory of and the Lorentz Transformation, a mathematical map that describes how measurements of space and time by two observers are related.

"Special relativity is supposed to be reciprocal, where both parties will experience the same time dilation, but all the examples that we have right now can be interpreted as directional time dilation," Kipreos said. "If you look at the GPS satellites, the satellite time is slowing down, but according to the GPS satellites, our time is not slowing down—which would occur if it were reciprocal. Instead, our time is going faster relative to the satellites, and we know that because of constant communication with the satellites."

An alternative theory, the Absolute Lorentz Transformation, describes directional time dilation. Kipreos found that this theory is compatible with available evidence if the "preferred reference frame" for the theory, relative to which directional time dilation occurs, is linked to centers of gravitational mass. Near the Earth, the preferred reference frame would be the "Earth-centered non-rotating inertial ," which is currently used to calculate the time dilation of GPS satellites.

"A strict application of the Absolute Lorentz Transformation to cosmological data has significant implications for the universe and the existence of ," Kipreos said.

As the universe gets larger, cosmological objects, such as galaxies, move more rapidly away from each other in a process known as Hubble expansion. The Absolute Lorentz Transformation indicates that increased velocities induce directional time dilation. Applying this to the increased velocities associated with Hubble expansion in the present universe suggests a scenario in which the present experiences time dilation relative to the past. The passage of time would therefore be slower in the present and faster in the past.

Supernovas that explode with the same intensity are used as "standard candles" to measure cosmological distances based on how bright they appear. Supernovas that are relatively close to the Earth line up on a plot of distance (based on the redshift of light) and brightness. However, in 1998 and 1999, the observation that supernovas at greater distances are fainter than would be expected provided evidence that the rate of universe expansion has accelerated recently.

"The accelerated expansion of the universe has been attributed to the effects of dark energy," Kipreos said. "However, there is no understanding of what dark energy is or why it has manifested only recently.

"The predicted effects of time being faster in the past would have the effect of making the plot of supernovas become linear at all distances, which would imply that there is no acceleration in the expansion of the universe. In this scenario there would be no necessity to invoke the existence of dark energy."

Explore further: Experiment with speeding ions verifies relativistic time dilation to new level of precision

More information: Kipreos ET (2014) "Implications of an Absolute Simultaneity Theory for Cosmology and Universe Acceleration." PLoS ONE 9(12): e115550. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115550 (PDF)

Related Stories

How to test the twin paradox without using a spaceship

April 16, 2014

Forget about anti-ageing creams and hair treatments. If you want to stay young, get a fast spaceship. That is what Einstein's Theory of Relativity predicted a century ago, and it is commonly known as "twin paradox".

Light from galaxy clusters confirms theory of relativity

September 28, 2011

All observations in astronomy are based on light emitted from stars and galaxies and, according to the general theory of relativity, the light will be affected by gravity. At the same time all interpretations in astronomy ...

Recommended for you

New study could hold key to hack-proof systems

July 17, 2018

Major data breaches have made worldwide headlines of late but an international consortium of scientists—including a professor from Heriot-Watt—have developed a new technique that could result in hack-proof systems.

259 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ubavontuba
3.8 / 5 (17) Dec 30, 2014
Interesting. But suggesting motion is not relative throws everything we think we know out of whack.

And using GPS as an example seems to be a poor analogy, as the earth is not accelerating relative to the GPS satellites, as it is not on a curved path around them.

But still, it is creative...

McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (29) Dec 30, 2014
The physics already maintains a dozens of such a models, for example the http://en.wikiped...sics%29. The connection point of these ideas is, they're just negating the official physics in some aspect - with assumption of thin sparse energy (quintessence) or particle (dilaton) or vector (Einstein Aether model) field pervading space-time. These theories have all a good meaning in dense aether model (the water surface is empty for its waves, but the density fluctuations of underwater do behave like the sparse field for them) - but they're lacking the deeper/more general perspective and connecting point with existing theories. They're merely add new postulates into existing models - in this sense I tend to perceive them extensive and violating the Occam razor criterion


Telling the truth I don't understand that. Is the dark energy the AWT that they haven't been able to find so far?
movementiseternal
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
movementiseternal
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Z99
4.7 / 5 (13) Dec 30, 2014
Why has none of the 'expert' commentators here called out another lousy phys.org article? SR predicts that satellite clocks will be ~7 microseconds/day slow. GR predicts that the gravitational field difference will make the satellite's clocks 45 us/d fast. The authors profoundly ignorant assertion that it is Special Relativity that GPS systems need to account for is breathtaking.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
movementiseternal
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
movementiseternal
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jdavis417
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 30, 2014
Does anyone else find it odd that new data suggesting an ever-faster expanding universe resulted in the temporary "acceptance" of the concepts of Dark Matter and Dark Energy as place holders but somehow, conveniently, didn't have any recourse on previously accepted theories? The very "proof" of the existence of Dark Matter (said to be the bending of light) apparently was of such small effect that it was previously unnoticed and only does the tasks that these theorists need it to do? I can't help be a bit suspicious of such easy answers... especially when the source was a scientist whose other ideas where/are scoffed at so openly.

As far as galaxies not exhibiting the trait of slower rotation at the extremities, I wonder if some kind of discrete pattern... a form that belies entropy isn't showing itself. Something that quantum theory might already point to? I dunno... but I'm thinking that they don't either. Sadly, the theorists can't seem to recall when they have side-stepped.
Wake
2.7 / 5 (12) Dec 30, 2014
This is extremely interesting and implies that the theoretical underpinning of modern cosmology has come into serious question. I have maintained that the mathematics that have been used was not describing the universe that we can see and that dark matter and dark energy were "fixes" thrown in to correct for these noted errors. Dr. Kipreos may have made a significant basis for such claims.
Modernmystic
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 30, 2014
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding something here, but this seems to be false given the theory,

but according to the GPS satellites, our time is not slowing down—which would occur if it were reciprocal.


Of course our time is not slowing down, because we're going slower than the satellites. It's not directional it's about velocity/acceleration/distorted spacetime. I may be missing something, but if I am I'd appreciate someone pointing it out.

The theory, as I understand it, is that time slows for something going FASTER than all other things relative to it. It seems to IT that time is going slower for all things relative to it. The opposite is true for something going slower than it.

I see no contradiction or problem.
jdavis417
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 30, 2014
This is extremely interesting and implies that the theoretical underpinning of modern cosmology has come into serious question. I have maintained that the mathematics that have been used was not describing the universe that we can see and that dark matter and dark energy were "fixes" thrown in to correct for these noted errors. Dr. Kipreos may have made a significant basis for such claims.


This was supposed to be part of the process, right? That if the future shows that we were like cavemen beating our heads together, instead of rocks, to make sparks for fire that would be okay... the science was being advanced. I wonder if TV stardom hasn't inflated the egos of many of these scientists to a point where they seriously consider themselves as something like gods and don't seem too shy about making derogatory remarks about any other (G)ods who came before them! LOL
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Wake
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2014
Z99 - do you suppose you could contain yourself long enough to explain why neither of your figures would account for a distance of 2 km/day in time dilation?
jdavis417
2.6 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2014
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding something here, but this seems to be false given the theory,

but according to the GPS satellites, our time is not slowing down—which would occur if it were reciprocal.


Of course our time is not slowing down, because we're going slower than the satellites. It's not directional it's about velocity/acceleration/distorted spacetime. I may be missing something, but if I am I'd appreciate someone pointing it out.

The theory, as I understand it, is that time slows for something going FASTER than all other things relative to it. It seems to IT that time is going slower for all things relative to it. The opposite is true for something going slower than it.

...


I guess we should always remind ourselves that there are reporters and news (so-called) agencies between us and the information source... they seem to simply get it wrong when trying to restate what they think they've heard? It's comical sometimes!
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (35) Dec 30, 2014
@ Modern-Skippy. I might be wrong because I am not a real scientist-Skippy like Zepher-Skippy and Bennie-Skippy aren't either. But I was reading on the GPS stuffs about a week ago because the little-Ira-Skippy was trying to talk to me about it.

I think what happens is time he goes slower for us that he does for the GPS satellites. From what I was reading I think I read it right, but he goes slower for us because we are closer to the center of the gravity than the satellite is, so time goes faster for it. The paper I was reading said you could put a clock on the surface of the sun, and another one just like it on the earth, the sun clock would tick-tock slower then the earth one would because we have less of the sun's gravity pulling on us than at the surfaces of the sun.

That might be wrong. But be sure to wait until somebody besides Bennie-Skippy or Zephir-Skippy or Really-Skippy tells you what is right because they aren't scientist-Skippys like I'm not either.
crapper_poet
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2014
You may want to look at these studies of varying beta decay as the result of changes in gravitational field strength due to the varying distance of Earth from the Sun. Other factors are also cited. Beta decay has been shown to have a varying rate in more than one experiment, possibly due to lepton interaction with high frequency electromagnetic radiation, weaker gravity, or maybe even neutrinos which up until recently were considered "massless". The specific cause of the varying rate has not been pinned down, but there are groups researching it. If it is due to lepton interaction with X-rays or changes in the strength of gravitational fields then the possibility exists that our physical "proof" is flawed, and time does not "slow down" but the method of measuring it's properties alters with exposure to varied environmental conditions.

Google: The mystery of the varying nuclear decay
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (13) Dec 30, 2014

I think what happens is time he goes slower for us that he does for the GPS satellites. From what I was reading I think I read it right, but he goes slower for us because we are closer to the center of the gravity than the satellite is, so time goes faster for it.


Indeed, that's entirely correct. Our time slows at an acceleration of about 11m/s (I believe that's our escape velocity). Again, this is not my field and I could be wrong...please take with shovels of salt. However, It's been my understanding that satellites are going SO fast in relation to us that this more than compensates. IOW if they're going more than 11m/s then our clocks appear faster to them, and theirs slower to us.

Which would seem to contradict the statement in the article. GR is actually somewhat understandable (unlike QM), but it doesn't mean it doesn't take some mental work for some of us (me included) :)

Could someone here proficient in the theory and math give a hand?
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (28) Dec 30, 2014
Could someone here proficient in the theory and math give a hand?


I can not help you with the math like Bennie-Skippy won't be able to either. But the theory part is maybe because the slowing of the time for us is more than the speeding of the time caused by the satellite moving. The paper I was reading said that. Something like (I'm making up the numbers) The time slows for us 45 nanoseconds and speeds up for the satellite 10 nanoseconds so it ends up a total of 35 nanoseconds difference between us and the satellite.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (29) Dec 30, 2014
@ P.S. for you Modern-Skippy.

I forget where I found the paper I was reading on. But I will look for him so you won't be lead out wrong by my made up numbers. The paper I read had the real numbers that explained how they make special clocks to run faster/slower than regular clocks so the GPS things will tell the truth about where you are.
zorro6204
5 / 5 (11) Dec 30, 2014
"an ever-faster expanding universe resulted in the temporary "acceptance" of the concepts of Dark Matter . . . "

Dark matter doesn't come from space expansion, it's necessary to explain the rotation of galaxies, and has since been confirmed by observation. The origin of dark matter is probably mundane, Susskind thinks it's just another particle we haven't tripped over yet, and there's a lot of work being done to narrow down the source.

As far as this article goes, sounds like nonsense to me, but I'll defer.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (31) Dec 30, 2014
@ P.S. for you again Modern-Skippy.

That was easy, I had him marked in case I wanted to see him again. This one has the real numbers in it that do the adding and subtracting for our time and the satellite time.

http://www.astron...gps.html
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (12) Dec 30, 2014
@ P.S. for you again Modern-Skippy.

That was easy, I had him marked in case I wanted to see him again. This one has the real numbers in it that do the adding and subtracting for our time and the satellite time.

http://www.astron...gps.html


Well I'll be damned! I would have bet the rent it was the other way around because of the speed of the satellites. Thanks Uncle for saving a family in the far north a cold month in the snow, as I'm paying the rent today :)

It's nice to learn something new.

That being said, it would appear that the article has a point then?
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (27) Dec 30, 2014
That being said, it would appear that the article has a point then?


A man has got to know his limitations. And I know my own. Maybe the XYZ-Skippy or the IMP-Skippy or the Captain-Skippy or the Magnus-Skippy will come along and answer that better than I can't no.
fixitup
5 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2014
"The accelerated expansion of the universe has been attributed to the effects of dark energy," Kipreos said. "However, there is no understanding of what dark energy is or why it has manifested only recently."
What does he mean by "recently?" That science had just discovered this effect but it has been happening forever, essentially?

artresh
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2014
Considering inflation as a process, which it is, some form of energy must be driving it. For inflation to be accelerating, energy must be supplied at an increasing rate. This fact cannot be reconciled with the proposition that energy in the Universe is constant. Therefore, energy and mater must be continually, either injected into the Universe or formed within it at an increasing rate globally, i.e., all over it not just in a given locality. This means that there were no Big Bang or faster than light inflation. It means that the Universe started developing at a very slow base, but has since been growing exponentially, so that the rate of formation of energy and matter is a function of the amount of energy and matter already in existence. In order words, the second order expansion is derived from the dependency of the generated amount of matter and energy on the amount of matter and energy already in existence. This proposition solves the uniform CMB temp & the horizon problem.
movementiseternal
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
movementiseternal
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
liquidspacetime
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 30, 2014
Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

'Was the universe born spinning?'
http://physicswor...ws/46688

"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis"

Our Universe spins around a preferred axis because it is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.g...023.html

"The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra" Kashlinsky said."

The clusters are headed along this path because our Universe is a larger version of a polar jet.

It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing.

Dark energy is dark matter continuously emitted into the Universal jet.
Shapip
5 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2014
I am also skeptical about the GPS satellite example, which relates back to a concept that has troubled me involving the twin paradox. My understanding is that since the satellites started on the earth before being accelerated to their current velocities relative to the earth that the time dilation will be observed with respect to the earth and therefore, under general relativity there is no discrepancy. But that doesn't make a lot of sense to me and its something I struggled to understand about the twin paradox. If two frames are relative, i.e. one frame has no preference with respect to another, then how can one twin age more than the other just because at some time in the past there was an acceleration from one frame to the other? The weird part is that the longer the constant velocity continues the bigger the age discrepancy will be when the twins are rejoined, regardless of how short the acceleration period. I've been told general relatively explains this but not why.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (29) Dec 30, 2014
I am also skeptical about the GPS satellite example, which relates back to a concept that has troubled me involving the twin paradox.


You can be as skeptical as you want to be. But the scientist-Skippy actually measure it. And what they measure is exactly what the Einstein-Skippy figured on.

My understanding is that since the satellites started on the earth before being accelerated to their current velocities relative to the earth that the time dilation will be observed with respect to the earth and therefore, under general relativity there is no discrepancy.


It doesn't matter where they started. On the ground you are having a slower passing of time than the satellite. You are in a stronger gravity field than the satellites. Time goes slower here than up there. It's not just a mathematical idea-theory-thing, it is a thing they actually measure, that's why your GPS doesn't fib with you, they make the clocks so they don't run like normal clocks.

Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (27) Dec 30, 2014
@ P.S. for you Shapip-Skippy.

On that twin paradox thing. I think you are doing what the Bennie-Skippy does to much of. Mixing up the special theory with the general's theory. If you take notice of which twin is doing the most accelerating you will know which one has the slowest times.

I'm not the scientist-Skippy like Bennie-Skippy and Really-Skippy aren't either. But the real scientist-Skippys say that as long as you keep your special theory stuffs and your general's theory stuffs separated and sorted out, there is no such a thing as paradoxing twins. But I might be wrong, so ask one of the smart peoples to explain better than I can.
Job001
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2014
Physics problems started with the assumption that nothing is something. Length between things and time between events are measures of nothing between something. Given a nonsense definition, we have nonsense results, no big philosophical surprise. GIGO, Garbage in, Garbage out!
krundoloss
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2014
If objects in closer proximity to a gravitational field experience slower time than distant objects in that same field, could that explain why objects in the outer reaches of a galaxy move at the same speed relative to objects closer to the center of the galaxy? It could be that the gravitational field of the super-massive black hole at the center of each galaxy exhibits a strong enough gravitational field cause time dilation on objects closer to it, leading to a consistent rotational speed of the entire galaxy. Make sense to anyone else?
Rotoscience
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2014
Why has none of the 'expert' commentators here called out another lousy phys.org article? SR predicts that satellite clocks will be ~7 microseconds/day slow. GR predicts that the gravitational field difference will make the satellite's clocks 45 us/d fast. The authors profoundly ignorant assertion that it is Special Relativity that GPS systems need to account for is breathtaking.


I agree. This article is meaningless for the reasons stated. Even ridiculous. So why is it here?
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mronkar
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2014
I feel that the "Hubble Expansion" theory is flawed. And that the accelerated expansion of the universe which is a concept/theory noted in the article is based in relation to the same flawed principals. This being the observed "red shift" when viewing distant galaxies. The same way a black hole gets its name, by light not escaping the gravitational effect of such a large mass. Red shift can be explained of the combined gravitational influence of the collective galaxy's mass. This would explain why every observed distant galaxy shows "red shift". And not that it is caused by every galaxy moving away from us. And don't get over excited about the cosmic microwave background. This has never been shown by any scientific method to exist outside of our own solar system. This now has led me to the "Big Bang Theory.". which would require throwing out the majority of our proven physical; laws of nature. And replace them with new ones that have not one scientific proven basis.
Rotoscience
1 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2014
Actually, the article is even more misleading than I thought. The statement, ""If you look at the GPS satellites, the satellite time is slowing down, but according to the GPS satellites, our time is not slowing down—which would occur if it were reciprocal. Instead, our time is going faster relative to the satellites, and we know that because of constant communication with the satellites." is just plain wrong. There is no absolute time, so saying time does not go faster on Earth is exactly what we would expect. Each clock goes at exactly the same rate in each reference frame. So when someone on Earth compares Earth time to the satellite time it sees the satellite's time relative to Earth goes slower. Someone on the satellite would also see Earth's relative time going slower. We are not on the satellite so we can NOT see the satellite's perspective relative to Earth! Huge error!!
mronkar
1 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2014
Dark Energy seems to be a concept that this expansion is powered by, this article says. Well, maybe dark energy isn't so hidden from us. It is thought that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The Sun and the Earth are located in one of the arms of the Milky Way Galaxy. The Sun/Earth is then thought to travel around the Galactic Center at a speed of 11.5 million miles (KM's) a day. Taken into account, the Mass of our Sun and Planets to travel at that speed. Think about a proven physical law. Kinetic energy.. Now apply that Kinetic energy to all the universes known mass. Well this would have to take a major bite out of the missing Dark Energy value. Anyway. I don't feel that theories based on religion or new conceptual physical laws of nature, should be steering us more than the proven laws of nature. Now time is property of our existence. Of course it can be mildly distorted using difference reference points. That doesn't mean a lot in the big picture.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Arsin
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2014
Galaxies are not 'moving more rapidly away from each other'. Space itself is expanding, with the galaxies remaining more of less stationary at their respective locations. So, this is no proper relative velocity between galaxies and does not cause any time dilation.

What does happened though is that the actual distances between the galaxies do increase over time. This means that, for any particular galaxy, the total gravitational potential from all other galaxies is decreasing over time. Therefore, time should speed up in the future, not slow down, as the gravitational time dilation reduces over time.

However, any attempt at alternative explanations for dark matter and dark energy are laudable. These are bogies set up to explain certain phenomena without a shred of proof. Millions of research dollars are being wasted in trying to detect something theoretical that may not even exist. Such money spent on trying to find alternative explanations would be a better use of funds.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (15) Dec 30, 2014
AWT is model
@McIek/ZEPHIR
guess the other log-in's got zapped for pseudoscience again?

for clarification... AW/DAW is NOT a theory, it is a religion or a philosophy as it has been falsified, repeatedly, and to a very high degree of accuracy through various numerous studies

i will link ONE that provides enough evidence to completely falsify the religious belief with empirical evidence
http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

so QUIT POSTING PSEUDOSCIENCE
A man has got to know his limitations. And I know my own. Maybe the XYZ-Skippy or the IMP-Skippy or the Captain-Skippy or the Magnus-Skippy will come along and answer that better than I can't no.
@IRA
i think you did just fine...
unless i don't understand the question
viko_mx
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2014
Some devious scientists are responsible to maintain the myth of the expanding universe with such physical phenomena such as dark energy. But why to exist such energy when the universe does not expand? To believe that something can be expanded indefinitely without changing its physical properties is childishly naive at least.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mronkar
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2014
It is hard to reconcile this accelerated expansion of the universe theory. Are there not galaxies colliding currently, and also indications of many that have happened in the past? This would seem to dismiss the accelerated expansion theory. The discussion of galaxy clusters leads to a structure that would be the next step up. atoms are structured like solar systems, solar systems have planets rotating around their sun. Solar systems are units rotating around their galactic core. it would be logical for galaxy clusters to be related in structure of movements. universe expansion does not seem to be a continuation of the properties that we can give merit.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2014
This scattering or gradual loss of energy of electromagnetic waves is due to the physical characteristics of the vacuum of space by itself, unelsatic interactions of this waves with free atoms in space and gravity of massive objects in the universe.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mronkar
1 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2014
As far as the synchronization of time kept by satellites and here on Earth. It most likely is a physical design issue of the time keeping system. something Like a quartz watch might not keep time the same when exposed to some effect in space. it's vibrations would be effected by gravity or something like that. I don't think that this time difference that is described in the article is related to a gravitational/ space time continuum effect.
mronkar
1 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2014
If this article, say is based on solid facts, then all the theories regarding isotope decays of the elements used to reconcile a considerable amount of knowledge and physics would be out the door.

Too many or much of research resources are being consumed by theories that just don't warrant locking in as being written in stone. Nothing has been shown to travel faster than the speed of light. The Big Bang would have required an inflation of space at a number with 30 sum decimals times the power of ten, times the light speed. Red shift doesn't only happen from a light source moving away from your location. Or the space expanding. And that the more scientifically supported by proven laws of the gravitational and distance effect on the photons emitted.
Shapip
not rated yet Dec 30, 2014
Thanks for the responses. I should have been clearer that I'm not skeptical that time dilation occurs in GPS satellites (I read that link - interesting), i'm skeptical of the use of the GPS satellites in the article as an example of a conundrum, because it doesn't seem to account for general relativity to explain why there's time dialation in the satellites as compared to the earth. I also take no issue with time dilation due to gravity. Regarding the twin paradox I understand that scientists believe there is no paradox because of general relativity but I simply do not fully understand why. If all frames are relative then the twin on rocket would see the earth experiencing slower time while the twin on the earth would see the twin on the rocket experiencing slower time. The difference is in the acceleration from one frame to another but I don't understand how that is reconciled (conceptually).
viko_mx
1 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2014
@McIek

The properties of matter and energy interactions between its constituent particles can be adjusted locally or globally through impact on their transmission medium - the vacuum of space . It contains a mechanism for control them and information channels for seting their parameters. So called devine matrix.
EyeNStein
5 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2014
Until you follow Einstein's reasoning starting from the invariability of the speed of light in any vacuum anywhere, anywhen. And accept that space and time are therefore not to be relied upon for the type of semi-logical reasoning displayed in the article and the comments: You arrive at all sorts of false assertions and paradoxes when you try to apply Einstein's results to your flawed examples. Especially if you insist on creating a privileged timeframe where none can exist: As this article does.
Only by mapping all motion into 4 dimensional space-time and accepting that that space-time is non Euclidian (non Pythagorean and has no absolute origin) do the paradoxes disappear.
E.g The two fabled twins follow different paths in space-time (due to ones acceleration) and though they meet again in 3D space their times are different as they arrive at different points in space-time.
Shapip
not rated yet Dec 30, 2014
Thanks - I'm not defending the article, in fact I think we agree that the article example of GPS satellites seems to be at odds with general relativity. That's a similar explanation to what i've heard before about solving the twin paradox (and I don't doubt it's correct) but I still don't see how that directly explains the paradox of relative frames. Let me try an example to illustrate my confusion: scenario 1, twin a quickly accelerates to 99.9 percent of light speed, stays there only long enough to experience 1 hour of time dilation, then deccelerates and is 1 hour older. Scenario 2, twin a undergoes the exact same accelaration but travels long enough at contant speed to be 50 years older. The acceleration and decceleration are the same, but somehow the time dilation effect is dramatically different due only to longer travel at relative contant velocity in frames that should have no prefence to one another.
Moebius
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2014
The idea that time passed faster or slower in the past is stupid. It affects everything everywhere the same, even if it was true the universe would appear the same then to residents as it does now.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) Dec 30, 2014
Physics problems started with the assumption that nothing is something. Length between things and time between events are measures of nothing between something. Given a nonsense definition, we have nonsense results, no big philosophical surprise. GIGO, Garbage in, Garbage out!

Nice try, but you're perception of an assumption is wrong. There is a bunch of empty spaces. Therefore they (the empty spaces) are not nothing...
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (10) Dec 30, 2014
Sigh. GPS works on both special and general relativity, everybody knows that. That molecular geneticist hasn't read up on gravitational redshift.

Amazing what you can get out into press release...
Osiris1
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2014
His whole idea is that if time moves slower, then stuff not controlled by the slower time will move away faster. Rediculous! Also the idea about a particle not moving. E-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g moves in the universe in some way. And the idea of a non moving particle controlling the motion of a moving particle somewhere else in the universe however remote is even worse. Lets say two particles, x and x1, are each moving away from the center point between them in directly opposite directions at the speed of light in a vacuum. Now a particle at the center point is now confused. It could chase the particle 'x' so as to not be separated in velocity from 'x' at a V>c, but then its velocity relative to 'x1' would be greater than c. X1 may not be able to slow down because it is chasing particle 'z' which is going at c away from x1. Given the infinity of particles and speeds relative to ALL the other particles...all different and at all kinds of masses and energy=ludicrous.
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2014
"Special relativity is supposed to be reciprocal, where both parties will experience the same time dilation, but all the examples that we have right now can be interpreted as directional time dilation," Kipreos said.


The flaw in his thinking can be found right there. Both parties experience nothing regarding time dilation. In Special Relativity, time dilation occurs **Between** inertial frames, not within inertial frames or to an inertial frame.

Where two rockets pass each other at high speed there is time dilation between their inertial frames. We see something by analogy in electrical circuits where two wires have an AC voltage between them. It is possible to treat either one as zero voltage and the other as AC (commonly done when connecting some kinds of transformers ie those without a centre tap where one rail is tied to Earth).

No temporal directionality is warranted or necessary in SR.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kriminy
not rated yet Dec 30, 2014
The article never explains three things:
- rate increase of time to increased mass; it talks at length about time and velocity yes but not mass. Or does the writer imply but not write that things going faster meaning time dilation time also have more mass in SR hence the missing gravitational force?
- where DM stops and DE begins and vice-versa. Maybe the distinction is illusory in this hypothesis since the two are different forms of the same thing
- I don't follow all the way 'reciprocal time dilation between two moving objects' that's discussed in the article. It A and B are moving w.r.t. each with a sizeable velocity then SR predicts B from the vantage point of A there must be time dilation and vice-versa. If this is wrong, I am half way surprised that a energy/mass imbalance hasn't been discovered in lab unless excepting carbon dating we don't deal with things old enough.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TechnoCreed
4.6 / 5 (18) Dec 30, 2014
Moderators: Why is the fucking Zephir crank allowed so many sockpuppets? Why, since you have banned several of them previously, do you not ban this Mclek as well?

Why do you allow MovementIsEternal's halfwitted croaks and ban people who can actually reason?

Fuck this pop stand. Ban me then, you assholes. This place is for idiots and wannabes. I feel bad for the four or five commenters here that *do* reason, and wonder why they bother...

Let me give you my honest opinion about that. The sad reality about Phys.org's is that they could not care less about science. All they care about is the number of mouse clicks, because it affects their bottom line.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Egleton
1 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2014
I love it when people throw stones at sacred cows. This is what science should be all about. A true scientist would offer the biggest stones to his opponents.
So-Mclec what observation can you offer that would sink your idea? What can we use to elliminate it?
I too am confused by time dilation between to objects as each object carries it's own frame of reference. So, in a model universe with only two objects, which one is being accelerated away?

There is one way of telling- by comparing their clocks- which implies that they DONT carry their own unique frame of reference- which means that their clocks wont misbehave-but we observe that they do.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kriminy
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2014
(You can ignore posts by people do not want to hear from ever again. Click on ignore user bottom right of their post.)
qquax
5 / 5 (9) Dec 30, 2014
This guy is not even a physicist, why does this nonsense get this kind of publicity? The data that this theory "explains" is obviously hand-picked and as others have noted the GPS reference is innately incorrect as both SR and GR need to be taken into account to get the precise correction.

Egleton
not rated yet Dec 30, 2014
I too am confused by time dilation between to objects as each object carries it's own frame of reference. So, in a model universe with only two objects, which one is being accelerated away?
It doesn't matter, until we compare their clocks. And we can do it only when these objects will met together again. This one, which traveled along longer path (with larger integral of product of time and speed being more specific) during this will be slowed down. This is what the special relativity formula for time dilatation of twins says.


Heisenburg's uncertainty principle? Is this where QM meets Relativity?
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2014
Well Milan you can protest about that all you want, but it is the only reason I can see that you are still commenting here. They know that you will recreate other accounts and by eliminating some of your avatars, they make it look like their TRYING HARD to make their job. They should stop doing that; everybody see trough their game.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Egleton
not rated yet Dec 30, 2014
I too am confused by time dilation between to objects as each object carries it's own frame of reference. So, in a model universe with only two objects, which one is being accelerated away?
It doesn't matter, until we compare their clocks. And we can do it only when these objects will met together again. This one, which traveled along longer path (with larger integral of product of time and speed being more specific) during this will be slowed down. This is what the special relativity formula for time dilatation of twins says.

I'm stuck again. So one of the two objects in the model universe really went further- but then again- against which frame of reference? It only has one frame of reference, it's own.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
indio007
1 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2014
Relativity in the Light of GPS
https://www.youtu...1GU_HDwY

Watch if you believe experiment trumps theory.
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
russell_russell
1 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2014
You don't need to bust the chops of young minds having zero years of SR or GR study behind them.

Each point of transmission is a spherical shell of expansion starting as a point. Each point's spherical shell expansion expands at the speed of light in vacuum.

All these spherical shells will pass (intersect) through each other. Every shell's surface from every point of transmission is received by every other shell's expansion point of transmission.

Every point of transmission receives the expansion shells from all other points of transmission and their respective expanding shells. Each expanding shell's surface arrives at each and every other point of transmission at different unique times. That's difference and their comparison determines location.

Hmmm. The surface of light spheres all intersecting. The expanding light sphere surfaces follow the curvature of the (gravity) field in which all the surfaces of the light spheres are embedded and must follow.

Et voilà
GPS
saposjoint
4 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2014
TechoCreed, please come to the Joint. It may be boring because of the dearth of fools, but we can talk freely there.

I think this will be the last this shithole sees of me.
t_d_lowe
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2014
Oh my god, this is so wrong. Does the guy not understand special relativity?

"but according to the GPS satellites, our time is not slowing down—which would occur if it were reciprocal."
Yes our time IS slowing down, if it were not special relativity would have been disproved many decades ago! The reason it is reciprocal is that the constant time reference frame is different for the satellite. The fact that the author has come up with a zany theory with fixed reference frames does not in any way show the reciprocal nature of time dilation to be wrong.

The problem with his 'frames fixed to large gravitating objects' is:
1. most of the universe is not near any one gravitating object
2. general relativity would not work
3. It is already disproven by speed of light tests.
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
My pseudoscience senses are off the charts concerning this article
Urgelt
1.2 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2014
Ugh. So much crank bullshit. Phys.org, *please* give your readers the option to block silly commenters.

On to my reaction to the article:

Wow!

I mean, I don't know if this idea will prove out, but it's testable, and GPS satellites are working with a directional time dilation model, and won't work with a reciprocal time dilation model, so there's some pretty good evidence right there.

It's just amazing that we didn't notice this before.

So if it proves out, then there's no need to postulate dark energy at all. That will be a very big advance to the quality of our cosmology and fundamental physics. I'm tempted to break out the champagne and celebrate.

Alas, we'll have to wait for the math wonks to grind up objections or confirmations before we put on our party hats. But I bet they'll have fun doing it, regardless of how it turns out. It's all good.
Tachyon8491
2 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2014
Personally I would like to see "dark" energy resolved in a simpler model explanation, getting rid of it in the same manner as Ptolemyan epicycles... All acceleration is relative and implies a differential application of energy - energy applied with reference to - the relationship between a bullet and the gun that fires it demonstrates the frames of reference involved. The differential application of energy has a "focus" of application that can affect its subjective rate of time. I remember discussing the possibility of directional time dilation more than thirty years ago at college and intuitively favouring it - perhaps more evidence will come to pass.
McIek
Dec 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (25) Dec 31, 2014
*please* give your readers the option to block silly commenters
Do you think "Ignore user" link? It's for smart commenters only.


I'm going to test that theory Skippy.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2014
Ugh. So much crank bullshit. Phys.org, *please* give your readers the option to block silly commenters.

Uh... I pretty much think they did with the "ignore user" tab, thus making you a little late to the party - or you been hittin' that champagne bottle already...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2014
Up early this morning, I see, Ira. :-)
EyeNStein
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014
Has anyone found the "ignore crackpot-non peer reviewed articles" tab yet?
ayesdi_fdesay
3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2014
Pseudoscientists debating pseudoscientists. This is both sad and somewhat hilarious. Now excuse me while I populate my ignore list...
McIek
Dec 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
swordsman
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2014
Comment above that Einstein's theory of relativity (ubavontuba) that "suggesting motion is not relative throws everything we think we know out of whack" is correct, and that is the way it should be. Einstein's theory of relativity is flawed, as I have proven. It is the Minkowski/Einstein interpretation that results in the problem. Unfortunately, Einstein made the flawed assumption that electromagnetic radiation is spherical. The measurements of antenna radiation that date back to 1936 refute this claim. It is also true that radiation is"transverse". In other words, the electromagnetic field wave of an antenna prove this to be true. Unfortunately, physicists do not seem to understand antenna radiation in great depth.

I can hear it now: Boo!, Boo!, Boo! However, I have the proofs ( www.science-site.net )
McIek
Dec 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
McIek
Dec 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (14) Dec 31, 2014
All this talk of reciprocity doesn't take much into account, there are weird misunderstandings in many respect by lots of people who make various claims...

NOTE: SR & GR are arithmetically related NOT geometric, thus effects are additive (or subtractive) re cumulative effect, one does NOT take dominance Eg. Just because GR seems higher for GPS does NOT mean SR should be ignored or "adjusted" they're separate simply adding them is ok.

Re Earth & GPS, it should be noted that BOTH frames of reference are really NON-Inertial, ie Both are subject to acceleration although it is clear there is a comparative difference in degree of difference.

Special Relativity (AFAIK) is only really well defined in Inertial Reference Frames (IRF) but, where we stand, we are closer to 'Inertial' as it were comparative to a GPS. ie It's traveling faster & subject to greater comparative (angular) acceleration.

Consider re reciprocity
https://en.wikipe..._paradox

Comments ?
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2014
Further to my last post, I propose (starting with) a clinical view of the so called "Twin Paradox" this, expect to address the topic re reciprocity, we will see, can add GR later...

Initial condition:
Twins robots, call em "Home" & "Axel" on space ship not in orbit in any system & not rotating W.R.T.O. the star field. ie To Minimise any Non IRF & effectively nil GR.

Axel goes for a trip, Home does nothing just watches:
Accelerates straight line (SL) at 100G for HIS clock period of 100Hrs
Turns off, waits 100Yrs, coasts
Turns around facing Home
Accelerates at 100G for HIS clock period of 100Hrs
Turns off
Both twins should now maintain same distance indefinitely (say 100yrs) yes/no ?

Axel returns:
Accelerates SL at 100G for HIS clock period of 100Hrs
Turns off, waits 100Yrs, coasts
Turns around facing away from Home
Accelerates at 100G for HIS clock period of 100Hrs
Turns off
& presumably, all else equal, they're re-united :-)

What do their clocks show ?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (14) Dec 31, 2014
Happy New Year, all!
Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (25) Dec 31, 2014
Happy New Year, all!


For you too Whydening-Skippy!!! And watch your self if you have to walk through the tall grass, be careful of the drunk driving-Skippys I mean. But other than watching for them,,,,,, Laissez les bons temps rouler Whydening-Skippy!!!
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2014
Happy New Year, all!


For you too Whydening-Skippy!!! And watch your self if you have to walk through the tall grass, be careful of the drunk driving-Skippys I mean. But other than watching for them,,,,,, Laissez les bons temps rouler Whydening-Skippy!!!

Thanks Ira.
No tall grass, just walk the road... but - I'll be home by 7pm, so... no worries..;-)
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (26) Dec 31, 2014
Happy New Year, all!


For you too Whydening-Skippy!!! And watch your self if you have to walk through the tall grass, be careful of the drunk driving-Skippys I mean. But other than watching for them,,,,,, Laissez les bons temps rouler Whydening-Skippy!!!

Thanks Ira.
No tall grass, just walk the road... but - I'll be home by 7pm, so... no worries..;-)


Yeah, I don't have to worry either other than normal stuffs, I'm working this week.
PsycheOne
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014
This is brilliant! I have tired to understand how one twin can travel away from the Earth and back and age less then the one who stayed home. If time dilation is relative, both those twins are traveling equal distances. For one twin to age more, there has to be an absolute framework. This theory provides that. The fact that it explains dark energy (which makes no sense to me) is confirmatory. I'd love to see other implications.
EyeNStein
5 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
Happy New year, loons, skippys, clones, Ignored Users, angry downraters and the few folk with brains who are prepared to use them.
For all you twins paradox fans: Here is the integral you need to calculate:-

http://en.wikiped...me_paths

As you will see it is not "back of a fag packet maths"; and nor is its experimentally verified value swayed by tortuously conceived thought experiments.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2014

Yeah, I don't have to worry either other than normal stuffs, I'm working this week.

Then it's just drunk gators, river rats n waterfowl you have ta worry about...:-)
IMP-9
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
Key quote from the paper.

Note that while the UTD scenario provides an alternate view of the recent increased effects of dark energy, it does not address the mechanistic basis for linear Hubble expansion, which may involve the cosmological constant/ dark energy.


Does involve. It does not explain away dark energy. This model offers no explanatory power over standard cosmology.
McIek
Dec 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
michaelboyd
1 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2015
The new paper makes the case that instead of being reciprocal, time dilation in response to movement is directional, with only the moving object undergoing time dilation.

Really? That assumes the earth isn't moving with respect to the object moving away from it. The earth isn't stationary since it is moving with respect to the Sun, the solar system, the galaxy and the universe and its direction is uncertain. That uncertainty invalidates this theory.
qquax
5 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2015
@Mike_Massen, yes you are entirely correct. The author of this paper as well as whoever promoted it here clearly doesn't understand general nor special relativity.

The fact that the author has no formal physics training should be considered a big tell. It's really not that hard to figure out how time dilation is perfectly symmetric relative to two inertial reference frames.

https://www.youtu...=related

The twin paradox only comes about because the symmetry is broken, one twin has to return to the others' reference frame.

Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2015
Further to my last post (& I'm hoping those claiming SR is wrong actually work THROUGH it & think re comments designed to converge), we have 6 "stages" for Special Relativity (SR) calculations re Alex:-

1. Accelerates away from Home
2. Coasts then turns around 180 deg
3. Accelerates to effectively stopping w.r.t.o. Home
4. Accelerates towards Home
5. Coasts then turns around 180 deg
6. Accelerates to effective reunion with Home.

Clearly stages 2 & 4 coasting must be reciprocal re SR both clocks slow w.r.t.o. each other and of course their history of prior acceleration in a non-inertial frame is irrelevant ie History up to any point of transition to inertial from non-inertial should have no bearing on subsequent time dilation, contraction etc

Those who deny SR's effects please read well ?
https://en.wikipe..._paradox

& offer detail comments to converge on source of claim as to why SR is "wrong" ?

Viewpoint of traveling twin esp interesting
McIek
Jan 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Pooua
1 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2015
This article reminds me of a proposal made by Dr. Russell Humphreys in his book, "Starlight and Time." His theory depends on the geometry of the Universe; the mainstream considers the Universe unbounded and lacking any center. If, however, the Universe is bounded and has a center, and Earth is at the center of the Universe, then universal expansion away from Earth would result in time passing much slower on Earth than in deep space.
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2015
McIek claimed
It's not difficult to find a counterevidence against special relativity, as it's based on intrinsic perspective, which becomes invalid outside of every gravity lens
Really ?
Please show this "evidence" that is "not difficult to find", I haven't found it ?

If U mean arbitrary application of logic & not empirical data, that's NOT evidence.

McIek claimed
If the light would propagate with constant speed across space, then no gravitational lensing or refraction would be ever possible and the universe would be empty..
Why ?
Where is any maths, the probability relations eg between random appearance of virtual particles & photon refraction. What has lensing got to do with universe being empty or not ?

McIek hasnt considered dark matter might be a symptom of a gravitational equation which has a wave-like attribute over very large distances, such as grouping coalescence behaviour...

McIek, many of your posts are odd comments, any evidence ?
imido
Jan 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Jan 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Jan 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
javjav
3 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2015
For one twin to age more, there has to be an absolute framework.
I am afraid you got Einstein theories wrong. Einstein time dilation is related with acceleration, not with speed. In the twin paradox only one twin accelerates (he goes in a spaceship to near light speed relative to the earth observer, then come back) thus ageing slower while he is going at near light speed relative to earth, independently if he is going out or coming back. Please note that "light speed" is only a constant that stablish the acceleration limits in respect to an observer who is not accelerating, independently of the speed of this observer. Light speed is constant, not absolute. There is a big difference.
imido
Jan 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
javjav
3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2015
Not in special relativity, which applies only to inertial systems.
In the twin example there are two different inertial systems ( outbound journey and inbound journey), and so there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the two twins, so there is no paradox. In this example, acceleration is what switches one twin (and only one) trough different inertial systems, so acceleration is what ultimately produces the time dilation. I agree it is not explicitly in the SR formula, but it is a direct consequence of it.
imido
Jan 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Jan 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
javjav
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2015
If the time dilatation would depend on acceleration, then the Hafele-Keating experiment wouldn't result into any time difference for both planes, because both planes move inertially in it.
If there is no acceleration then there is no Hafele-Keating experiment at all. Acceleration was not only necessary in order to put the planes at different velocities, it was also the only action applied to objects in inertial systems. I don't say acceleration is mentioned in the Special Relativity formula, but you are the one who wants to reduce all the calculations to it, not me. SR was named "Special" for a reason, which is that it is not a complete theory. You also need other formulas for any practical experiment. In other example, Einstein theories do not forbid massive objects going at light speed, what it forbids is a massive object to "accelerate" to light speed due to infinite energy requirements.
Bongstar420
4.8 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2015
There are no "stationary" objects.
imido
Jan 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 01, 2015
Einstein theories do not forbid massive objects going at light speed, what it forbids is a massive object to "accelerate" to light speed due to infinite energy requirements.
What's the difference?

Anything equated with having "rest mass" can never be accelerated to light speed, that must of course includes "massive objects" as per your quote because of infinite energy requirements. I do not get your point "Einstein theories do not forbid massive objects going at light speed". Just within the parameters of one sentence you contradict yourself.
javjav
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2015
Benni, the difference is huge. A massive object can go at light speed or even faster in comparison with earth reference frame, to start with because the aggregated velocity due to the accelerated expansion of the universe. But these objects never accelerated to ftl, although their current speed in relation to eaeth is ftl indeed. Other ways are theoretically possible ( tachions created directly at ftl speeds... ) although there is no evidence for them, but in any case ftl concepts when acceleration is involved or not are completely different
OZGuy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2015
Zephir
Did you lose track of which sockpuppet was asked questions when you use imido to answer questions posed to Mclek? Possibly you believe that using an alternate sockpuppet adds legitimacy and validity to the original post... it doesn't .

Irrespective there is no need to create yet another sockpuppet to reply.

.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 01, 2015
Benni, the difference is huge. A massive object can go at light speed or even faster in comparison with earth reference frame, to start with because the aggregated velocity due to the accelerated expansion of the universe. But these objects never accelerated to ftl, although their current speed in relation to eaeth is ftl indeed. Other ways are theoretically possible ( tachions created directly at ftl speeds... ) although there is no evidence for them, but in any case ftl concepts when acceleration is involved or not are completely different


.......this sure is a lot different than stating something with "rest mass" (your "massive object") is capable of light speed or faster. I've been noticing the silly stuff parading around here about FTL neutrinos, and it sure leaves me to wondering where their fantasies are coming from, I guess some people just have more time on their hands than they know what to do with.
saposjoint
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2015
This article reminds me of a proposal made by Dr. Russell Humphreys in his book, "Starlight and Time." His theory depends on the geometry of the Universe; the mainstream considers the Universe unbounded and lacking any center. If, however, the Universe is bounded and has a center, and Earth is at the center of the Universe, then universal expansion away from Earth would result in time passing much slower on Earth than in deep space.


WTF?
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (24) Jan 01, 2015
@OZ-Skippy. I just gave you the bad one vote by accident. Man I am really sorry I did that so don't be so mad with me on it. Sorry.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 01, 2015
I've been noticing the silly stuff parading around here about FTL neutrinos, and it sure leaves me to wondering where their fantasies are coming from, I guess some people just have more time on their hands than they know what to do with.

Not all of us can live on an estate with their own ski trails, Benni...
Anyway, he did not say rest mass in the piece you quoted - you did...
OZGuy
5 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2015
Ira
Je sais que vous voulez dire aucune infraction.

I know some posters appear to take votes very very seriously, why I don't know as it is irrelevant in the real world.

I don't fret over who does and does not vote on my comments and what the votes are worth, I'll leave that to those looking for schoolyard popularity.

Hope work was uneventful and safe on NYE and you have a great year.

imido
Jan 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (25) Jan 02, 2015
my Aunty Natalie just got red Mercedes-Benz CLA-Class CLA45 AMG from only workin part time on a computer... hop over to this site,.,,,,, paygazette.c�m


Tell Aunty-Natalie-Skippette that Zephir-Skippy is already working this corner with his AWT stuffs, she'll have to move along. Maybe she could try the gray wolf article, they don't have a crankpot over there yet. But she may have to put with Kochiveh-Skippy muttering about heretics, 2 Christmases, foreign students in foreign schools and such foolishment.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 02, 2015
I've been noticing the silly stuff parading around here about FTL neutrinos, and it sure leaves me to wondering where their fantasies are coming from, I guess some people just have more time on their hands than they know what to do with.


Not all of us can live on an estate with their own ski trails, Benni

....and none of it showed up by some magical stroke of good luck because I spend a huge chunk of my time sitting at a keyboard turning out drivel like you do. By the way, I also built the house I live in.
Anyway, he did not say rest mass in the piece you quoted - you did...
That's right, because he, like you, don't comprehend the difference until you've been to Wikipedia to do some fact checking after you read something I wrote. I don't need Wiki for fact checking, I do this stuff for a living, it's the reason you never see me doing Copy & Paste like almost all the rest of you ROCs need to do.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (16) Jan 02, 2015
.........what's the problem with my above post the that you 1 Star it Ira, maybe you don't know how to cross country ski, you don't know how to build a house, and above all that I don't need WikiPedia as my foundation of knowledge for math & science? I know, it's a tough resume to compete with isn't it? I post these factoids just because I like to see ROCs like you get all bent out of shape. Yeah, it ain't braggin' if you can do it, I can do it.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (29) Jan 02, 2015
what's the problem with my above post the that you 1 Star it Ira


Same as all the rest of the ones you write for us.

maybe you don't know how to cross country ski


Non, and I don't much care to know how either.

you don't know how to build a house


I probably could, if I had the time from other things.

and above all that I don't need WikiPedia as my foundation of knowledge for math & science?


Maybe you try to learn that then maybe you wouldn't get things so mixed up all the time.

I know, it's a tough resume to compete with isn't it?


Not for me it isn't. Maybe for returnering-Skippy it is but I have it covered good.

I post these factoids just because I like to see ROCs like you get all bent out of shape


Bent out of shape Cher? Not me. If I believed anything you say then maybe, but only maybe then. What I care if you can't really ski on the country or can't cobble together a shack or can't use the Wiki to be right?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (13) Jan 02, 2015
....and none of it showed up by some magical stroke of good luck because I spend a huge chunk of my time sitting at a keyboard turning out drivel like you do. By the way, I also built the house I live in.

What do you think ROC's did before they had the time to sit and type our "drivel"? Oh, and...
the house you built - straw, sticks or bricks? BTW, I live on a 3 acre "park" that I developed in my spare time... And I really recommend you start a garden and teach your kids about gardening... Stop spending all your spare time complaining about ROCs - did you not like your father or grandfather?
Anyway, he did not say rest mass in the piece you quoted - you did...
That's right, because he, like you, don't comprehend the difference until you've been to Wikipedia to do some fact checking after you read something I wrote.

Don't be such a simpleton..


javjav
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 02, 2015
he, like you, don't comprehend the difference until you've been to Wikipedia ... you never see me doing Copy & Paste like almost all the rest of you ROCs
Benni, why are you so aggressive? I didn't write to you in that style. Many of us are here for a good conversation where we can learn from others, and also help others if we can. You could also learn one thing: quoting Copy/Pastes and links from respected sources is one of the most basic tools in modern science. Wikipedia is perfectly valid, as they always provide references to the original source. If it where a formal conversation I should had mention each source, but my statement was so basic that I didn't though it was needed: You negated a basic fact, that an object can travel faster than light in respect to an inertial observer, and that this is not forbidden by Einstein SRT. Only the acceleration to light speed is. Obviously you didn't got the difference until I told you, but I am happy to help you, not upset
Benni
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 02, 2015
Ira........sure you're all bent out of shape, all because you can't compete in the arena of accomplishments & ideas, which is exactly the reason you troll me because comparing me to yourself sends you go into uncontrollable psycho-babble.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (13) Jan 02, 2015
Ira........sure you're all bent out of shape, all because you can't compete in the arena of accomplishments & ideas, which is exactly the reason you troll me because comparing me to yourself sends you go into uncontrollable psycho-babble.

Ira's last response to you was quite measured and calm...
For someone who "doesn't have the time to type out drivel", you sure spend a lot a time dissing everyone else on here...
Uncle Ira
4.9 / 5 (27) Jan 02, 2015
Ira........sure you're all bent out of shape,


If you say so Cher. But most peoples see me having the big fun. Not so surprising non, you usually get most things mixed up.

all because you can't compete in the arena of accomplishments & ideas, which is exactly the reason you troll me because comparing me to yourself sends you go into uncontrollable psycho-babble.


Psycho-babble,,, is that what I do? Down here in Louisiana we call that making fun with you and ridicule.

But tell me something true Bennie-Skippy, what have I said that would make you think I want to compare my self with your self? Or anybody else's self? I like what I have fine and dandy. I can't think of anything I really want that I don't already have for me.

Maybe you try so hard to impress us because you want more than what you are dissatisfied with. Maybe you are bended out of shape because we just don't much care about taking you seriously..
Benni
2.5 / 5 (16) Jan 02, 2015
..and none of it showed up by some magical stroke of good luck because I spend a huge chunk of my time sitting at a keyboard turning out drivel like you do. By the way, I also built the house I live in


What do you think ROC's did before they had the time to sit and type our "drivel"?
I don't care.
BTW, I live on a 3 acre "park" that I developed in my spare time
....this could be dropped into my front yard.

And I really recommend you start a garden and teach your kids about gardening
..my gardens are already larger in size than your "3 acre park"

Stop spending all your spare time complaining about ROCs - did you not like your father or grandfather?
........all my "spare time"? I'm on holiday vacation, you live here along with so many of those other foul mouthed & name calling ROCs whose lead-ins almost always start with "moron" or "stupid" & end with a body part name in the nether regions, and this stuff gets 5 Starred by the likes of you.

Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 02, 2015
I'm on holiday vacation, you live here along with so many of those other foul mouthed & name calling ROCs whose lead-ins almost always start with "moron" or "stupid" & end with a body part name in the nether regions, and this stuff gets 5 Starred by the likes of you.


Actually, I am working in my studio and happen to have a computer here.

BTW - you must have taken your Viagra this morning, cuz you're being an even bigger dick than usual...
Benni
2.6 / 5 (15) Jan 02, 2015
Actually, I am working in my studio and happen to have a computer here.

BTW - you must have taken your Viagra this morning, cuz you're being an even bigger dick than usual...
...................case in point.....I guess you think this is the kind of science-speak my preteens should be reading?
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 02, 2015
Actually, I am working in my studio and happen to have a computer here.

BTW - you must have taken your Viagra this morning, cuz you're being an even bigger dick than usual...
...................case in point.....I guess you think this is the kind of science-speak my preteens should be reading?

Wow, dude.... you are wound WAAAAAYY too tight...
Pre-teens wouldn't want to be on a site with all us old codgers...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (13) Jan 02, 2015
Pre-teens wouldn't want to be on a site with all us old codgers...

Or maybe they would cuz we honor them with a little dignity by treating them like as adults...
OZGuy
5 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2015
Zephir

Thank you for confirming you run multiple accounts to cross-post on the same article, I see the moderators properly thanked you by banning both imido and Mclek.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 02, 2015
BTW - you must have taken your Viagra this morning, cuz you're being an even bigger dick than usual...
.................case in point.....I guess you think this is the kind of science-speak my preteens should be reading?

Wow, dude.... you are wound WAAAAAYY too tight...
Pre-teens wouldn't want to be on a site with all us old codgers...


.........no, that isn't the main reason, the main reason being the filthy foul mouths you ROCs are so proud of displaying all over this site of which you are so eminently guilty, but about which you label complaints of as being "wound WAAAAAY too tight".
Benni
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 02, 2015
yyz, Captain Stumpy, Vietvet, Uncle Ira & their 5 Star voting record:

you live here along with so many of those other foul mouthed & name calling ROCs whose lead-ins almost always start with "moron" or "stupid" & end with a body part name in the nether regions, and this stuff gets 5 Starred by the likes of you.


Actually, I am working in my studio and happen to have a computer here.

BTW - you must have taken your Viagra this morning, cuz you're being an even bigger dick than usual...


yyz, Captain Stumpy, Vietvet, Uncle Ira: All gave you a 5 Star vote for your foul mouth, ROCs all.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (28) Jan 02, 2015
@ Bennie-Skippy. Don't you try to put that on me non. I never use the bad words when I'm writing on the physorg. I never even use the bad words when I'm talking to really stupid couyons in person. And out of those other peoples you mention there, I don't see them using the bad words either. So if they do, they don't do it much because I read everything they write on the articles I'm looking at and I don't see it much or see it little even.

Now why you don't just go ski over the country since you don't seem to want the smart peoples to try to help understand some of the things you misunderstand.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (28) Jan 02, 2015
P.S. for you Bennie-Skippy. That time I give you the bad karma vote for the same reason I usually do. For telling the lies. This time about peoples writing the bad words when they don't.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2015
BTW - you must have taken your Viagra this morning, cuz you're being an even bigger dick than usual...
.................case in point.....I guess you think this is the kind of science-speak my preteens should be reading?

Wow, dude.... you are wound WAAAAAYY too tight...
Pre-teens wouldn't want to be on a site with all us old codgers...

that was filthy mouth? My Southern Baptist mother laughed at that one. (She's an old codger, too - 80)
.
........no, that isn't the main reason, the main reason being the filthy foul mouths you ROCs are so proud of displaying all over this site of which you are so eminently guilty, but about which you label complaints of as being "wound WAAAAAY too tight".

You need to go out and buy yerself a sense of humour.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2015
sure you're all bent out of shape, all because you can't compete in the arena of accomplishments & ideas, which is exactly the reason you troll me because comparing me to yourself sends you go into uncontrollable psycho-babble
@BeniTROLL
1- Ira has a nose for Liars and TROLLS, so he let you know with a 1 star
2- you like to talk about your accomplishments but you've never been able to prove a single one of them, and that includes those "differential equations" you like to go on about... you've been asked to solve then before by Mike... why so quiet brainiac?
3- and last, it is not that we NEED wiki or to copy paste references to UNDERSTAND... it is that we use actual references to validate or support our assertions
you like to say you don't need it... but you are dead wrong
you've seldom been able to support your conclusions with reputable science

Ira can spot the FAKES, and THAT is the reason that I uprate him
he has YOUR number, beniTARD
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2015
Ira can spot the FAKES, and THAT is the reason that I uprate him
he has YOUR number, beniTARD


Oh, Cap'n... watch that foul mouth...:-)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2015
yyz, Captain Stumpy, Vietvet, Uncle Ira: All gave you a 5 Star vote for your foul mouth
@beniTROLL
so now you are going to pull an RC and tell us how we SHOULD be voting?
why?
and as for your petty issues regarding Whyde's terminology - this is a forum that my grandchildren visit as well - SO WHAT! You cannot shield them forever. it is best that they learn how to argue with logic and see how reality is right off the bat

THAT is something my grandkids learned here: that people like you like to SAY they are good/better/whatever than others because of some special ability you perceive yourself having, but you've NEVER BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT, so you are no better than a liar at best
all my "spare time"? I'm on holiday vacation
then WHY are you here?
to troll?

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

and do we really NEED to know how big/important you think you and your yard are?
i have at least 20 acres for every one of the 8 wolves i have... so what
SHEESH
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (12) Jan 03, 2015
.........no, that isn't the main reason, the main reason being the filthy foul mouths you ROCs are so proud of displaying all over this site of which you are so eminently guilty, but about which you label complaints of as being "wound WAAAAAY too tight".

You do have the option of not viewing this "channel"...
(oh, please, please, please pick that option...)
OZGuy
5 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2015
benni
With Rem and Stimpy now banned i have time on my hands to read and vote on your posts and WOW what fun they are. Shame getting 1's upsets you so much because I can't see me reducing your voting angst based on what you've written so far.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 03, 2015
javjav offered
..A massive object can go at light speed or even faster in comparison with earth reference frame, to start with because the aggregated velocity due to the accelerated expansion of the universe
Study U read quantifying pls ?

javjav mentioned
But these objects never accelerated to ftl, although their current speed in relation to earth is ftl indeed
Raises Q?, Eg craft left origin ie 100KLY away & 1G accel towards us, what would we observe as it entered & passed by ie. What speed would it see from ITS Non-IRF re Earth & what speed would we observe of it from OUR (comparative!) IRF?

ie Craft observes BIG Lorentz Contraction (LC) as accelerating & I expect we'd see it 'suffer' also BIG LC from our view but, what r the speeds & how long would we see it take to pass say across our Earth's orbit diav?

Re Benni - LOL, zippo re Special Relativity (SR).

Hmmm, those gravitating to AWT are those that can't work through details of SR ;-)

*grin*
javjav
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2015
Hi Mike, here you have basic calculations, I think it is an easy to understand article about this
http://curious.as...mber=575
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2015
@Javjav
It does not matter for how long you accelerate, you would never experience going faster than light and neither an observer from another IRF would see you go faster than light. Play with SR formula and understand it: http://www.1728.o...ivty.htm

At the LHC particles of matter are accelerated at close to the speed of light and can never be brought FTL even if you would put a billion times more energy. There are two beams of particles of matter going at close to light speed in opposite directions crossing each other, and still if you would be an observer at their reference frame you would see them rushing at you below light speed.
javjav
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2015
@Javjav
It does not matter for how long you accelerate, you would never experience going faster than light and neither an observer from another IRF would see you go faster than light. Play with SR formula and understand it
To start with I already said that according to SR nothing can accelerate to ftl (I am afraid you are answering without reading the conversation). But SR only applies to inertial frames, which is not the case (just read my link). All objects you observe with redshift > 1.4 are moving faster than light in relation with you, but they never accelerated to ftl speeds, so they are not subject to SR time dilation. That is the difference that I was trying to explain, please make the effort to read my link with an open mind, then you will understand it
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2015
TechnoCreed replied
It does not matter for how long you accelerate, you would never experience going faster than light and neither an observer from another IRF would see you go faster than light
Re My example of my last post, thats true re observers OTHER than the traveler (U) but, in the craft what would U 'see' out the window (?) clearly massive Lorentz Contraction (LC) of everything around U Eg stars in the Galactic Plane (GP) AND everyone elses clocks going Immensely faster (ie. others in the GP not constantly accelerating at 1G) - from the Frame of Reference of U in the craft U could reach Milky Way center of ~50K to ~60K plus Light Years in as little as 25yrs of craft time for U.

Look at the so called Twin Paradox, it shows this albeit by a local example which doesn't go into such a scale as I posed acceleration is 1G for 100,000 light years distance (as far as the Non-IRF of the craft is concerned)...
https://en.wikipe..._paradox

Cont..
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2015
Cont

TechnoCreed added[q .. particles of matter are accelerated at close to the speed of light and can never be brought FTL even if you would put a billion times more energy. There are two beams of particles of matter going at close to light speed in opposite directions crossing each other, and still if you would be an observer at their reference frame you would see them rushing at you below light speed Yes that is true but, if U were riding on one of those particles what would U see of the comparatively stationary LHC & this is crucially linked with the rate of time for U - which is so MUCH slower ?

In this situation energy goes from a (comparative) Inertial Reference Frame (IRF), the LHC - induction coils to a Non-IRF - particles as they are accelerated ie. In this case LC applies as factor to increase amount of energy required to get close(r) to 'c' (from LHC's IRF), which of course it cannot & energy is measured & confirms SR adequately.

Cont later...
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2015
oops got munted :-(

TechnoCreed added
..particles of matter are accelerated at close to the speed of light and can never be brought FTL even if you would put a billion times more energy. There are two beams of particles of matter going at close to light speed in opposite directions crossing each other, and still if you would be an observer at their reference frame you would see them rushing at you below light speed
Yes that is true but, if U were riding on one of those particles what would U see of the comparatively stationary LHC & this is crucially linked with the rate of time for U - which is so MUCH slower ?

This situation energy goes from a (comparative) Inertial Reference Frame (IRF), ie LHC - induction coils to Non-IRF - particles as they are accelerated ie. In this case LC applies as factor to increase amount of energy required to get close(r) to 'c' (from LHC's IRF), of course it cannot, that energy is measured & confirms SR adequately.

Cont later.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2015
@javjav
Hi Mike, here you have basic calculations, I think it is an easy to understand article about this
http://curious.as...mber=575
That is an excellent reference.

In a nutshell, the expansion of spacetime causes a perception of acceleration of distant objects (even though the objects, themselves, aren't actually accelerating).

TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2015
@javjav
Your link have been read and understood. I will add that I have read many different vulgarizing articles like this one. What you have to notice from them is that they treat space like a container and time as if it would be a constant. In other word a very intuitively human way.

The two postulates of special relativity states:

1) The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.
2) The Constancy of Speed of Light in Vacuum
The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.

You can imagine reality outside of SR if you want, but what is observed, exist in relation between objects and you can only experience it from your own frame of reference; looking at it any other way does not make sense.
javjav
1 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2015
You can imagine reality outside of SR if you want, but what is observed, exist in relation between objects and you can only experience it from your own frame of reference; looking at it any other way does not make sense.
Once again, Special Relativity is "Special" for a reason. It is well tested and well proven, but it does not cover all the reality. You can not fit all what is observed into SR.
javjav
1 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2015
There are two beams of particles of matter going at close to light speed in opposite directions crossing each other, and still if you would be an observer at their reference frame you would see them rushing at you below light speed.
That is true according to SR. But for looking at subatomic particles you have to leave SR and go into quantum mechanics. And once you do it you will observe apparent ftl effects that can not be explained with SR, like quantum entanglement.
javjav
1 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2015
From other perspective, if you apply SR to a particle going at light speed the time dilation make time constant for it. If you were a photon all your trajectory until you disappear will happen instantly, and then your only option is to use QM to study it as a wave, not by using SR. Only from this perspective entanglement can be understood, as if time is constant and you are a wave you can produce instant effects to any point of your trajectory, or to collapse into a particle in any of the points were you have a probability to exists. SR is not violated, it simply does not cover this area.
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2015
javjav claimed
Once again, Special Relativity is "Special" for a reason. It is well tested and well proven..
Indeed but, "Special" is just useful distinction, don't see it essentially to ascribing any more (so far)...

javjav claimed
You can not fit all what is observed into SR
Really ?
So far it's done well but, does require physicists look at the WHOLE issue, Eg comparative Inertial Reference Frames (IRF) ie. It is an absolute is it not (?) that there are NO actually perfect IRF's all MUST be Non-IRFs, to a comparative degree even miniscule levels of gravitational force supplying 'some' acceleration anywhere in the universe.

So when an experiment is conducted Eg
http://en.wikiped...periment

Or system is implemented Eg
https://en.wikipe...g_System

ie. ALL are Non-IRF but, comparatively are IRFs.

Top three (3) please javjav, what "can not fit" but, WHAT "is observed" re Special Relativity ???
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2015
javjav claimed
That is true according to SR. But for looking at subatomic particles you have to leave SR and go into quantum mechanics. And once you do it you will observe apparent ftl effects that can not be explained with SR, like quantum entanglement
Can we instead converge, the point was re LHC & relative observed speeds & comment I made about LHC's & particles IRF's. U don't need to diverge & pull in issue of Quantum Entanglement (QE) to be raised in that context. Besides QE appears more as a derived inferential aspect without necessarily any practical value which in any way defies SR specifically, ie. There is no information value, no aspect that allows actual confirmed communication re any FTL effect whatsoever, despite the papers making arbitrary claims.

If however, you have any particular link/paper you have read that makes a claim re LHC's acceleration which touches on SR's seeming inability that portends to require QE, then please share it ?
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2015
javjav stated
From other perspective, if you apply SR to a particle going at light speed the time dilation make time constant for it
Don't see how U can do that with matter but, only with photons, even then not quite correct to claim time is constant. Photons travel a "null geodesic" so, re photon's peculiar IRF is concerned there is NO experience of time.

javjav said
If you were a photon all your trajectory until you disappear will happen instantly
Sort of, from photon's creation to its absorbance ie from e- transition creating photon to it then lifting e- energy NO time elapses {for its IRF}.

javjav claimed
Only from this perspective entanglement can be understood, as if time is constant and you are a wave you can produce instant effects to any point of your trajectory, or to collapse into a particle...
Think U are confusing duality with QE, not that simple !

javjav said
SR is not violated, it simply does not cover this area
Quite correct :-)
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2015
TechnoCreed offered
What you have to notice from them is that they treat space like a container and time as if it would be a constant. In other word a very intuitively human way
Indeed, we aren'tt used to approaching SR in daily life, so r conditioned to think along comparatively narrow causal/perceptual lines.

TechnoCreed added
.. postulates of SR states:

1) Laws of physics are the same in all IRFs
2) Constancy of Speed of Light in Vacuo
The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference
For others reading, must be caveats
a. There r NO pure IRF's all r ultimately Non-IRF but, r comparatively in degree IRFs
b. Lorentz Contraction is means to ensure your 2) is "perceptually correct" always
Adding
3) History of particle/traveler, ie Change of IRF to comparative Non-IRF is irrelevant.

In "twin robot" example.Moving robot stops 100G accel to coast, this doesn't impact SR reciprocity re Home or calcs etc

Cont
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2015
Cont

TechnoCreed added
You can imagine reality outside of SR if you want, but what is observed, exist in relation between objects and you can only experience it from your own frame of reference; looking at it any other way does not make sense
Not entirely, U can always calculate the 'view' from any frame of reference, some may appear to defy accepted physics but, as you correctly state "from your own frame of reference" if at least cognitively.

So its doubtful the author of the paper referred to in this thread "University of Georgia professor Edward Kipreos" when it is claimed, he states:-

"..makes the case that instead of being reciprocal, time dilation in response to movement is directional, with only the moving object undergoing time dilation"

Strongly suggests this Professor (genetics ! eek) doesn't fully appreciate SR & how/when to apply Lorentz or useful experience of solving problems using:-
http://en.wikiped...ki_space

hmmm
javjav
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2015
Think U are confusing duality with QE, not that simple !
No, what I was meaning is that there are "several" quantum effects (not only QE) that are better understood if you think from the perspective of the particle reference frame. All what the photon does happens in one instant for it, including entanglement, duality, diffraction, interference, superposition, collapsing into a particle at a defined position, etc. It looks weird from an outside point of view, but not from the photon point of view. All the potential trajectories, possible interactions and possible quantum values are explored in no time from its perspective. We are the ones that expand an instant (T=constant in our frame) into the time dimension, leading us to think it is weird, just because we try to apply our "time" perspective to something that really happened without it.
Quantum Magician
2 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2015
All what the photon does happens in one instant for it, including entanglement, duality, diffraction, interference, superposition, collapsing into a particle at a defined position, etc.

Hmm, interesting..
Can you please also try to explain what meaning a "wave" (or "wave function") has, when "time" is taken out of the equation? Thank you :-)

On a side note: a "photon" (particle) does not even exist until an interaction event (collapse) occurs, which is also the only process where the propagation speed drops below luminal - meaning that for all instances where a "photon" could be considered, time indeed does flow.

When there is no interaction, light propagates in the form of a wave (not as a "photon" particle) - and what we understand under "photon (wave)" is just an EM wave of speciffic total energy (governed by h*ν). So talking about "photons flying through vacuum" is a rather misleading term, imho..
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2015
Quantum Magician offered
On a side note: a "photon" (particle) does not even exist until an interaction event (collapse) occurs, which is also the only process where the propagation speed drops below luminal - meaning that for all instances where a "photon" could be considered, time indeed does flow
Beg pardon, did U see my post re "null geodesic" & re IRF, can U clarify ?

My understanding is a photon (wave quanta) comes into existence when e- drops an orbital to a lower energy level the resulting energy discharge as particle/wave doesn't drop below luminal - it IS at 'c' by definition ?

Quantum Magician continued
When there is no interaction, light propagates in the form of a wave (not as a "photon" particle) - and what we understand under "photon (wave)" is just an EM wave of speciffic total energy (governed by h*ν)
By 'interaction' do U mean not being absorbed & going back into shifting an e- orbital state or refraction or some other 'reaction' ?
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2015
javjav replied
..if you think from the perspective of the particle reference frame
Sure, for a complete understanding one must analyse all appropriate interaction reference frames.

javjav
All the potential trajectories, possible interactions and possible quantum values are explored in no time from its perspective
Really ?
From probability theory this is an astounding number of permutations, think U are crossing the line here into 'something other than evidence'... If U do have evidence & I don't mean conjecture then I am interested. Imho after 30 yrs & observing multiplicity theories come & go, I don't think so - ie re tangible evidence...

javjav claimed
We are the ones that expand an instant (T=constant in our frame) into the time dimension, leading us to think it is weird, just because we try to apply our "time" perspective to something that really happened without it
Sry lost me - got some maths ? Can U translate re metrics of Mikowski Space pls ?
Quantum Magician
2 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2015
My understanding is a photon (wave quanta) comes into existence when e- drops an orbital to a lower energy level the resulting energy discharge as particle/wave doesn't drop below luminal - it IS at 'c' by definition ?

Not sure I understand what exactly you wanted to say with that (focusing solely on the emission part?), but if the whole absorbtion/re-emission process did not take some "extra time" (eg. slowing the energy propagation to below luminal), we would have no optics. And to add to that - nothing in this universe really happens in "an instant".

By 'interaction' do U mean not being absorbed & going back into shifting an e- orbital state or refraction or some other 'reaction' ?

By 'interaction' I mean every single event where energy is being transfered/transformed (absorption, absorption & re-emission).
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2015
Quantum Magician claimed
.. nothing in this universe really happens in "an instant"
YES it does all the time - from the Inertial Reference Frame (IRF) of the photon - its a "null geodesic", did U not get acquainted with Special Relativity (SR) - sort of a really significant pre-requisite for QM isn't it !?

Look from our IRF we 'see' photons but where can they or do they EVER travel sub-luminally ?

Hey sure, there is phase velocity re refraction but surely that can't be what U meant ?

Quantum Magician
By 'interaction' I mean every single event where energy is being transfered/transformed (absorption, absorption & re-emission)
I get the impression U haven't determined where photons arise & their intrinsic SR aspect etc

Photons (wave/particle) are generated by an electron (e-) orbital transition releasing energy, the photon then (at some point in OUR IRF) does the opposite. From the IRF of the photon it does NOT experience time but, from our IRF we do, its SR !
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2015
@javjav
Special relativity is just the name of the law of relation in time, mass and physical dimensions between moving objects in a flat universe. I think it was qualified as special just to establish a distinction with general relativity and make clear that there are two distinct physical laws of relativity known so far.

@Mike Massen
I do not know where you wanted to bring some light with regards to the LHC example; you just stopped formulating your idea. In case it is about SR with relation to acceleration, I will mention to you that SR does handle acceleration: http://math.ucr.e...ion.html
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2015
@javjav
With regard to 'special': It is also special because there is no such thing as a flat universe. So this law of motion is applicable in an idealized universe. (Mike also mentionned this fact)
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2015
@javjav
With regard to objects in the universe beyond 14 billion light years moving FTL! Plug in the numbers 1/√(1-V²/C²) you will then notice that you have to deal with complex numbers; so does these objects really exist with relation to our reality? I do not have the answer and I suspect that there will never be any clear answer to that.
javjav
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2015
I think it was qualified as special just to establish a distinction with general relativity and make clear that there are two distinct physical laws of relativity known so far.
It was not that. When he formulated SR, Einstein was not even knowing that he was going to develop the General Relativity theory later. SR was named "Special" just because it only apply to Special conditions, with no gravity taken into account to start with.
javjav
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2015
With regard to objects in the universe beyond 14 billion light years moving FTL! Plug in the numbers 1/�š(1-V²/C²) you will then notice that you have to deal with complex numbers; so does these objects really exist with relation to our reality? I do not have the answer and I suspect that there will never be any clear answer to that.
No need for complex numbers, forget about math and look at experimental measurements for a moment. These objects exists and can be measured in real experiments. Please read the link I sent. Here it is again: http://curious.as...mber=575
javjav
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2015
.. nothing in this universe really happens in "an instant"
YES it does all the time - from the Inertial Reference Frame (IRF) of the photon - its a "null geodesic ..."
I fully agree. From the point of view of its reference frame, a photon really experiences all its existence (the transfer of its energy an momentum) in one instant. The problem is that our current physic theories are limited and they do not permit the observer to clearly differentiate what is the part that happens in our reference frame (like the wave function over the time) from the "instantaneous" (better said Plank time in our IR) effects, which only make sense from the point of view of the photon, including the action of collapsing into a particle ( energy/momentum transfer), the entanglement with other particle or the interference with itself. From a photon point of view, time and distances are simply zero, and none of its instantaneous actions will brake any physics rule.
Tachyon8491
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2015
I uttered the wish that dark matter could "disappear" in a simpler cosmogonic explanation in a previous post, only to be seriously marked down - now, that I do not mind at all, everyone is very welcome to dissent and have their own opinion. What surprises me though, appears to be the implication that the "dark matter model" is accepted without reserve, doubt or question... Is that really true? Does everyone feel that way?
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2015
TechnoCreed observed
I do not know where you wanted to bring some light with regards to the LHC example; you just stopped formulating your idea
Hmm, thought I merely stated the facts & primarily as response to javjav & to Benni & also reflection on one of the few situations where Lorentz applies to energy needed to get close(r) to 'c' as "real" energy expended as its in the IRF of the LHC where the expended energy upon collision returns to that same LHC's IRF. In cases where one observes a craft leaving order its only 'apparent' energy & one cannot therefore apply the Lorentz Contraction formula to momentum ie the twin accelerating is substantially a Non-IRF.

TechnoCreed added
In case it is about SR with relation to acceleration, I will mention to you that SR does handle acceleration:{link]
Hmm a fair intro to those not trained in SR, its more appropriate to go straight to Minkowski Space. Think U misread, IIRC I didn't claim as such SR has limitation...
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2015
TechnoCreed offered
@javjav
With regard to objects in the universe beyond 14 billion light years moving FTL! Plug in the numbers 1/�š(1-V²/C²) you will then notice that you have to deal with complex numbers (CNs);.....suspect that there will never be any clear answer to that
Its fairly straightforward in this context, like an equivalent paradigm of zero over zero, it is meaningless. In respect of CNs *specifically* in context with >14BLY, its meaningless - all it indicates is the objects are beyond an equivalent "event horizon" like paradigm, can never be viewed so using LC doesn't offer anything useful if at least to confirm any speed beyond c in that relational IRF is *never* measurable.

In electronics however, Root(-1) is often used as coefficient factor re impedance Eg AC phase but, only indirectly as a means to change sign which shifts leading <-> lagging etc

In SR context there 'might' be an equivalent use of CNs but not (so far) re >14BLY AFAIK
Tachyon8491
3 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2015
I uttered the wish that dark matter could "disappear" in a simpler cosmogonic explanation in a previous post, only to be seriously marked down - now, that I do not mind at all, everyone is very welcome to dissent and have their own opinion. What surprises me though, appears to be the implication that the "dark matter model" is accepted without reserve, doubt or question... Is that really true? Does everyone feel that way?
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2015
Urgelt claimed
I mean, I don't know if this idea will prove out, but it's testable, and GPS satellites are working with a directional time dilation model, and won't work with a reciprocal time dilation model, so there's some pretty good evidence right there
No !
U have misunderstood Inertial versus Non-Inertial Reference Frames (IRF), it's well described here
https://en.wikipe..._paradox

& in relation to
https://en.wikipe...ki_space

Urgelt claimed
It's just amazing that we didn't notice this before
U mean U didn't as those not trained in Physics at Uni level or those that haven't worked through it & determined there is NO actual directionality BECAUSE of the IRF to Non-IRF issues !

Urgelt claimed
So if it proves out, then there's no need to postulate dark energy at all
No !
There is still a 'something' accelerating the expansion of space/universe. FWIW. I have an idea & exploring the physics/maths but, not simple :-(
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2015
@Mike Massen
Its fairly straightforward in this context, like an equivalent paradigm of zero over zero, it is meaningless. In respect of CNs *specifically* in context with >14BLY, its meaningless - all it indicates is the objects are beyond an equivalent "event horizon" like paradigm, can never be viewed so using LC doesn't offer anything useful if at least to confirm any speed beyond c in that relational IRF is *never* measurable.

'In that RELATIONAL IRF' that is exactly what I am saying and relational is the key word here. When javjav is claiming that some objects are flying away FTL, he means in relation to us, which is impossible from SR point of view. I have said it before and say it again, FTL is easy to imagine, but one cannot claim it to be factual. In his provided link, I am in accord with the observations not with what is inferred from it, because there are no know physical law that proves it beyond any reasonable doubt.
javjav
2 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2015
the "dark matter model" is accepted without reserve, doubt or question... Is that really true?
The article is about dark energy, not about dark matter. It proposes an interesting idea, as I understand it, it means that time is slowing down in proportion to space expansion, thus making a same distance to look greater over the time (an effect that has to be added to the distance increment caused by the space expansion itself). We know that time can pass at different rates in certain conditions, so it is not a crazy idea. Difficult to demonstrate, but an interesting idea to investigate anyway, and also testable. Regarding dark matter it is not affected by this theory. But "Dark matter" is just the name that we give to an observable effect that behaves like if were undetected matter. Nobody is sure about what it is, but it seems to be useful to put a name to it rather than using "that unknown thing..". In that sense "dark matter" does not seem to be a bad name.
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2015
TechnoCreed pondered
@Mike Massen
... javjav is claiming that some objects are flying away FTL, he means in relation to us, which is impossible from SR point of view
Not quite, well it depends on how U appreciate both IRF overall.

Eg. Friend leaves Earth at 1G & U observe his accel, as the observed speed approaches 'c' U notice it takes longer & longer to increase speed & it takes millenia until he fades out never getting to 'c' & U never observe him going FTL even after 100's of yrs. From your friend's view however he sits on 1G & starts to observe Lorentz Contraction but, never actually observes FTL either. Thus, as is accepted by SR physicists your friend can reach galactic center in HIS IRF in ~25yrs but U no longer exist as millenia have passed in yours.

TechnoCreed observed
.. FTL is easy to imagine, but one cannot claim it to be factual
Scenario offered is acceptable in SR & consistent, accepted not easy to test directly but, indicative re LHC etc
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2015
TechnoCreed continued
In his provided link, I am in accord with the observations not with what is inferred from it, because there are no know physical law that proves it beyond any reasonable doubt
Fair enough, generally accepted Minkowski space & calculations appropriate to that tool regards SR, which manages issues such as GPS quite well, is confirmed experimentally. By way of extrapolation, there is nothing to suggest a constant 1G as postulated cannot occur & another way to look at it is, say as the friend traveling, U drop a marker buoy each second. U are still accelerating away from each (last) marker buoy U drop & at the same energy expenditure to keep that 1G but, only respect to the last marker buoy dropped.

I brought up LHC as that circumstance clearly shows U are transferring energy from an IRF to a Non-IRF contained within your IRF thus Lorentz factor applies to increasing energy & protons can NOT get to 'c' but, that doesnt apply above re friend's travels.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2015
However, there is no understanding of what dark energy is or why it has manifested only recently
That was a pretty dumb thing to say.

They'll be explaining things away and "solving" things using fancy math for perpetuity. The Lorenz Transformations aren't exactly the holy grail in math - without supplemental GPS augmentation systems, we would have a degree of accuracy of around 7.5 meters. Currently, at best, government GPS systems can provide around 3 centimeters of accuracy with a LOT of additional tweaking. Given the quantum nature of reality, that's still way off since, if we were to scale up the diameter of an atom's nucleus to the size of a golf ball, the outermost electron would be up to 12 kilometers away.

http://www.gps.go...tations/

heh-heh..
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2015
baudrunner claimed
.. Lorenz Transformations aren't exactly the holy grail in math - without supplemental GPS augmentation systems, we would have a degree of accuracy of around 7.5 meters. Currently, at best, government GPS systems can provide around 3 centimeters of accuracy with a LOT of additional tweaking
What makes U imagine augmentation has anything to do with SR/GR re Lorentz corrections ?

Do U actually understand how naive & uneducated & ignorant U appear ?

Please, before you bark on a Science form, at least, read the posts BEFORE you lurch into making a post showing your hubris not consistent with the topics in question - FFS !

(shakes head)...

U do also realise don't U the classic GPS we are used to has its accuracy controlled by US military, their standard systems are well beyond so called consumer GPS & often so called augmentation are a 'work-around' for that preset deficiency...

AFAIK, US Military hasn't yet released all max accuracy aspects ?
Reg Mundy
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 06, 2015
I uttered the wish that dark matter could "disappear" in a simpler cosmogonic explanation in a previous post, only to be seriously marked down - now, that I do not mind at all, everyone is very welcome to dissent and have their own opinion. What surprises me though, appears to be the implication that the "dark matter model" is accepted without reserve, doubt or question... Is that really true? Does everyone feel that way?

I do not believe that DM exists, it was invented to explain the behaviour of masses which did not conform to the accepted "laws" of gravity. In my opinion, gravity as a force was invented to explain physical phenomena which were more logically explained by expansion theory, and the mythical force of gravity is an unnecessary fantasy with no evidence for its existence that is not explained by expansion theory.
I stand by for the usual barrage of invective from establishment zealots.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 06, 2015
Reg Mundy claimed
I do not believe that DM exists, it was invented to explain the behaviour of masses which did not conform to the accepted "laws" of gravity
Science is not about belief its about the balance of probabilities, if the balance favours an amendment to Newton's equation then so be it, else it will compel investigation as we obviously cannot, from this distance, be absolutely sure what is observed to affect galactic anomalies.

Reg Mundy claimed
.. gravity as a force was invented to explain physical phenomena which were more logically explained by expansion theory (ET), and the mythical force of gravity is an unnecessary fantasy with no evidence for its existence that is not explained by expansion theory
Various experiments show force of gravity to fit well within error bars.

U would already have been better received if:-

1. U outlined the maths for ET somehow - paper ?
&
2. Offered evidence with methodology

Instead of unsubstantiated opinion.
barakn
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 06, 2015
I notice that Kipreos's whiteboard is curiously devoid of equations, unlike the whiteboards of real physicists.
Reg Mundy
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 07, 2015
@Mike_Massen
Much has been written about ET, including my own contribution at http://www.amazon...l0MA28M, and I do not propose to repeat it all again here. I suggest you apply your logic to the proof of existence of the force of gravity, which cannot be detected, deflected, shielded, reproduced (without mass), has no identified particle associated with it (detected any gravitons recently?), is not a wave (surfed any good gravity waves?), and in short is a convenient invention to explain and model physical reality - but its ONLY A MODEL! My theory combines the effect we call gravity with TIME, and the passage of TIME (measured and dictated by particle expansion) produces the effect. Unfortunately, it is impossible to explain all of the aspects of the theory here, as you need the whole thing to understand how it works, and that cannot be done in the context of this site.
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2015
Reg Mundy claimed
..my own contribution at http://www.amazon...0l0MA28M and I do not propose to repeat...
Keh ? Not seen it, where on phys.org ?
U expect me to pay U, this is commercial spam, U should be reported for demanding money on a discussion forum, not appropriate !

Reg Mundy claimed
I suggest you apply your logic to the proof of existence of the force of gravity
Has been done to death for hundreds of years by better than I, equations work well at our practical scale Eg used by Nasa etc just fine & in respect of General Relativity too :-)

Please extract a para eg Key 6 sentences which are compelling re someones ET theory detail in relation to our claimed misperception of gravity as it is AND what sort of experiments have been crafted to explore ET definitively ?

OR would U be claiming world exploitation of the equations of gravity for putting satellites into orbit, going to moon, mars, comets etc is all part of a conspiracy ?

Evidence ?
Sandra_Gold
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2015
As the universe gets larger, cosmological objects, such as galaxies, move more rapidly away from each other in a process known as Hubble expansion.
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2015
Sandra_Gold new (today) here added
As the universe gets larger, cosmological objects, such as galaxies, move more rapidly away from each other in a process known as Hubble expansion
Indeed quite correct :-)
There R all sorts of theories as to Y or if the measurements are correct as such ideas seem counter-intuitive from our general experience, especially as it takes some a long time to appreciate the idea we are on real spaceship ie Earth; rotating at ~1000mph, orbiting the sun at ~66,000mph & our solar system orbiting galactic center at ~1,000,000 mph. So all appears to be in motion ALL the time & forever.

Physics has interesting observations & dilemmas, what interesting times to appreciate.

Suggest, to get best value, acquaint yourself with some of the definitions & issues people seem to love arguing about, resources such as wikipedia seem fair & have good references.

An expanding universe has interesting philosophical paradigms to explore, welcome :-)
Reg Mundy
2.1 / 5 (15) Jan 08, 2015
@Mike_Massen
Have you ever considered that maybe the universe isn't expanding, but light gets "tired" and that redshift is a combination of doppler effect and photon "decay"? OK, there is a component of redshift due to rising out of a "gravity" well, but if photons decay over time (or time dilates and is not constant - same observed effect) then the decay takes the form of increasing wavelength (i.e. the photon expands) and such an expansion, if applied to all elementary particles, provides exactly the expansion required to give the effect of gravity. (Take the average redshift from, say, a thousand different distant galaxies, disregarding the top and bottom ten percent as being overly influenced by doppler, and derive an average expansion over time, then apply it to atoms (although they are not the most fundamental particles) for mass).
Coincidence?
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2015
Reg Mundy asked
Have you ever considered that maybe the universe isn't expanding
long ago yes. Your maths would need to describe & for how long such static hasn't been affected by ANY gravity ever to collapse.

Reg Mundy claimed
.. provides exactly the expansion required to give the effect of gravity
Have seen contrived so called exact relationships from all sorts of fringe theories but, they have shown to be self referential. Please show with your maths this "exactly" relationship, the basis for it & how it applies with time to eg re 14 billion years ?

Reg Mundy claimed
..Take the average redshift from, say, a thousand different distant galaxies, .... then apply it to atoms (although they are not the most fundamental particles) for mass).
Coincidence?
Show the maths which forms the basis of any claimed coincidence - can't U see your so called average can easily sway this so called 'coincidence' to suit a variant of confirmational bias ?
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2015
ubavontuba claimed
And using GPS as an example seems to be a poor analogy, as the earth is not accelerating relative to the GPS satellites, as it is not on a curved path around them
You misunderstand physics & that acceleration can have a -ve comparative value. Earth is in orbit around the Sun, GPS is in orbit around Earth, work through the comparative values of acceleration re orbits and it will be clear to you...

ie. Neither Earth or GPS are in anything but a Non-Inertial Reference Frame but differentially GPS is more comparatively accelerated than Earth.

Please get to grips with fundamentals of relativity, there are NO absolutes...
Reg Mundy
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2015
@MM
Show the maths which forms the basis of any claimed coincidence - can't U see your so called average can easily sway this so called 'coincidence' to suit a variant of confirmational bias ?

Ditto for "gravity".
Establishment theorists keep bending and tweaking the "rules of gravity" to meet perceived reality.
You challenge me to provide the maths for expansion theory, but would reject anything which might be described as self-referential. How about you doing the same for "gravity", or you providing ANY direct evidence for the existence of the force of gravity? Of course. anything self-referential or which could be equally ascribed to ET is ruled out....
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2015
Establishment theorists keep bending and tweaking the "rules of gravity" to meet perceived reality.

No, Clever Hans. The Einstein field equations have been around for a while, now, and last time I checked, the physics community has not declared them outdated. You are confusing what's currently known with hypotheses, such as MOND. Just stop.
And no, the field equation derivation is not self referential. That would be your arguments for why we should read about your expansion theory, which amount to either "read my book" or "derive my own equations for me. (Derp)"
How about you doing the same for "gravity", or you providing ANY direct evidence for the existence of the force of gravity?

Well, Hans, I would say the Cavendish experiment, for starters, but I sense that that's not mouth foamy enough for you, so maybe you could at least tell us what you would consider evidence.
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2015
Reg Mundy claimed
Ditto for "gravity"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

I don't make claims which contradict observations, the onus is therefore on you to show the maths as to why so much mass subject to gravitation forces doesn't collapse re your idea ?

Reg Mundy claimed
Establishment theorists keep bending and tweaking the "rules of gravity" to meet perceived reality
I know of no applied "tweaks" which are needed to send craft out of solar system, what happens on larger scales is tangential to core of your idea/maths as it should be testable/observed at solar system scale ?

Reg Mundy
You challenge me to provide the maths for expansion theory..
No. I asked you to show why, based on your claim there is no expansion, that the matter is NOT subject to known gravitational forces and doesn't collapse ?

Process of convergence & dialectic.

cont
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2015
Reg Mundy claimed
..but would reject anything which might be described as self-referential
No, you misunderstand. All I said in that specific respect is that I saw an odd theory long ago which turned out to have a self-referential aspect, the maths didn't stand up. I'm not saying I wouldn't look at your maths - so are you saying you concede there is a self-referential aspect to your idea. You realise this actually might be ok, as it all depends where ?

Note: Maths which supports the notion as to why there is no expansion AND matter doesn't collapse is crucial. Without maths I have only layman words of your claim, nothing to evaluate & nothing to calculate, surely U can see that ?

Reg Mundy asked
How about you doing the same for "gravity", or you providing ANY direct evidence for the existence of the force of gravity?
The FORCE its observation of effect & measurement is very well known see the link posted, tested even at small scales, no tweaks.

cont
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2015
Reg Mundy claimed
Of course. anything self-referential or which could be equally ascribed to ET is ruled out
You may have experienced that with others, I don't *automatically* make such assumptions.

Bear in mind there are many "survival aspects" of any idea on its progression to becoming a theory - ie Supporting evidence. Layman's explanation without maths & just claims of coincident is one of those because it requires verifications on math issues which add known factors such as Special & General relativity - both of which proved also rather well in respect of GPS & 1000's of times a day - for obvious reasons.

In interim Reg Mundy, please also bear in mind I have no made any claims that contradict currently accepted theories & the execution of those theories re maths launching to space, not just Mars but farther etc

U made a specific strong claim of exactness & coincidence, I know of none in current lore, onus is therefore up to U to show it arithmetically ?
Reg Mundy
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2015
@furbrain

Well, Hans, I would say the Cavendish experiment, for starters, but I sense that that's not mouth foamy enough for you, so maybe you could at least tell us what you would consider evidence.

Hello again, furry, long time no see!
Re the Cavendish Experiment, that is the clearest possible demonstration of the expansion of two masses requiring a force to keep them apart (accelerate them away from each other) to maintain separation. Explain to me where this amazing force of gravity is necessary. Its more liikely to be two fairies pulling an imaginary string bringing the spheres together....
thefurlong
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2015
Hello again, furry, long time no see!

Been busy.
that is the clearest possible demonstration of the expansion of two masses requiring a force to keep them apart

1) No, it's the clearest possible demonstration that there is an attraction between two objects a.k.a force. Without further information, any other conclusion is just speculation.
2)What's expanding? Clearly, it's not geometry, since we don't actually witness them expanding.
Its more liikely to be two fairies pulling an imaginary string bringing the spheres together....

LOL! Let it be known that Reg Mundy thinks that fairies are more plausible than an inverse-square attraction between two objects. I guess you followed my advice and visited http://www.realfairies.net/

Also, you didn't answer my question. What WOULD you consider evidence of gravity?
Reg Mundy
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2015
@MM
Maths, maths! Surely you realise that maths is only a MODEL of reality? OK, it can be a very good one as in GR, and very accurately predict reality, but never EXACTLY, as per the current position of the Pioneer probes versus the GR predicted positions.
Newton simply "invented" gravity and his equations did an excellent job of explaining/predicting reality, but never hinted at what gravity actually is.
Einstein went one step further, and explained gravity as curvature in space-time caused by mass. He simply "invented" the space-time continuum, but it remains an "invention" rather than an actual thing.
So has anybody theorised what gravity actually is, or what TIME actually is (besides me)? Well, quite a few if you look hard enough, but they have been universally either ignored or treated as cranks.
And so the establishment continues blithely on, clinging to disproven "laws" dogmatically, ignoring the obvious problems such as quantum entanglement, time running backwards etc.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 15, 2015
@Reg Mundy,
Can you comment on:-

1. http://en.wikiped...periment
AND
2. Why all rocket launches (to orbit), orbits & leaving orbit etc Conform very nicely to:-
https://en.wikipe...vitation

Please TELL me where either or both the above are WRONG (even a little), that these forces are imaginary or some other comparable 1/d^2 force occurrence from where else ?

Did U know gravitation is approx 10^-39 smaller than electrostatics, would you suggest there is some other force of comparable magnitude that prevents us jumping off the ground and reaching some low orbit then ?

Why are things heavy then, any even basic maths to offer an alternate equation ?

Surely before launching off with an idea to approach an alternate theory you must have first got to grips with the current supported theory which has last for ~400 yrs ?

Even one bit of maths to cast doubt, phase shifted dimensional thermodynamics perhaps ?
Reg Mundy
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2015

that is the clearest possible demonstration of the expansion of two masses requiring a force to keep them apart

1) No, it's the clearest possible demonstration that there is an attraction between two objects a.k.a force. Without further information, any other conclusion is just speculation.
2)What's expanding? Clearly, it's not geometry, since we don't actually witness them expanding.

1)Your logic is faulty. You claim I invent expansion to explain that a force is needed to keep the two spheres apart. I claim that you invent a force of gravity that is pulling them together. What is the difference? Do try to be LOGICAL!
2)As you and I and everything else are also expanding at the same rate as the spheres, they remain RELATIVELY the same size as far as any observer is concerned.

All this is explained in my book. I thought you must have read it when you went quiet for such a long time, presumably suffering from a melted brain.
Reg Mundy
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2015
@Reg Mundy,
Can you comment on:-
1. http://en.wikiped...periment
Please TELL me where either or both the above are WRONG ..
Even one bit of maths to cast doubt, phase shifted dimensional thermodynamics perhaps ?

Stop being silly, MM! Phase shifted dimensional thermodoodas indeed!
Seriously, though, I have already commented on the Cavendish Experiment (incidentally, only carried out by Cavendish, not derived by him..)
Elsewhere, I have already explained that the effect of gravity is caused by expansion of mass, which can be associated with the expansion of the fundamental particles of matter similar to the decay (increased wavelength) of photons over time as measurable from the average redshift over time in light from distant galaxies taking into account doppler effects.
I cannot go into detail here as it is necessary to understand the whole thing including what TIME actually is.
Read Lee Smolin's "Time Reborn" as a primer...
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2015
You claim I invent expansion to explain that a force is needed to keep the two spheres apart. I claim that you invent a force of gravity that is pulling them together.

Wrong.

What you mean to say is that I posit the einstein field equations to EXPLAIN gravity, whereas that you posit fairies--err--expansion to explain it. The difference is that one of us is backed by a century of physical confirmation (GPS, Mercury's precession, large scale cosmic structures), and rigorous theory based off of a small set of precise physical axioms, and one was developed from furious anal excavation by somebody who doesn't understand the difference between compound interest problems and continuous growth problems.

One of them can be simulated to any finite level of precision, given a powerful enough computer. One of them is so vague that no algorithm exists that would allow us to simulate it, even if we had an infinitely powerful computer. See the difference?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2015
2)As you and I and everything else are also expanding at the same rate as the spheres, they remain RELATIVELY the same size as far as any observer is concerned.

And that doesn't make any sense in many different ways. Here's one of them I haven't mentioned: you aren't taking mass/energy into account.

Take two balls of identical mass. Then have one of them spin really rapidly. Now, you can look at this two ways. In one way, due to energy-mass equivalence, the rapidly spinning ball will be more massive. In the other, the stress-energy tensor will be larger in magnitude, and so the gravitational attraction of matter to the spinning ball will be much larger. Hence, matter nearby will be more strongly attracted to the spinning ball than to the non-spinning one.

We can also perform this thought experiment with heat too. Take one ball and heat it to a high temperature. It will also have a stronger gravitational field.

Your expansion claptrap does not account for this.
Reg Mundy
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2015
@furbrain
What you mean to say is that I posit the einstein field equations to EXPLAIN gravity, whereas that you posit fairies--err--expansion to explain it. The difference is...

Yeh, the difference is that you use einstein to explain THE EFFECTS of gravity without saying what it actually is, whereas I explain the effects AND say what causes them.
One of them can be simulated to any finite level of precision, given a powerful enough computer. One of them is so vague that no algorithm exists that would allow us to simulate it, even if we had an infinitely powerful computer. See the difference?

When you try to simulate using GR to a very high level of precision, the answer you get is WRONG! (Additionally, you never heard of the Uncertainty Principle?) In any case, what is to stop you using the same computer to calculate projections based on expansion?
Reg Mundy
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2015
@furbrain
Take two balls of identical mass then have one of them spin really rapidly. You can look at this two ways. In one way, due to energy-mass equivalence, the rapidly spinning ball will be more massive. In the other, the stress-energy tensor will be larger in magnitude and so the gravitational attraction of matter to the spinning ball will be much larger. Hence, matter nearby will be more strongly attracted to the spinning ball than to the non-spinning one.

Anybody actually done this experiment? I must have missed it...
We can also perform this thought experiment with heat too. Take one ball and heat it to a high temperature. It will also have a stronger gravitational field.
Your expansion claptrap does not account for this.

Of course it does. Heat will cause the mass to expand, thus making it slightly larger, i.e. moving it slightly ahead in the expansion stakes....
Why don't you give in, furry, you cannot win by defending the indefensible, you know I am right.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2015
Yeh, the difference is that you use einstein to explain THE EFFECTS of gravity without saying what it actually is

...cuvature. Of space-time. Are you on drugs? Also, why on earth is saying that everything expands is more acceptable? Why would everything expand?
When you try to simulate using GR to a very high level of precision, the answer you get is WRONG!

Haha. Nope! If that were the case, we would have thrown gravity out by now. Just because we have found some discrepancies does not mean that gravitational simulations do not OVERWHELMINGLY agree with what's observed. Do you really think that physicists are so stupid that they would espouse a theory that doesn't work faithfully? And by the way dark matter doesn't imply that gravity is wrong. It implies it MIGHT be wrong. But it also might simply imply that there is matter that behaves differently than what we're used to--hence--dark matter.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2015
(Additionally, you never heard of the Uncertainty Principle?)

Haha. Oh, Clever Hans, you and your glib understanding of things...
I wasn't talking about THAT precision, silly. I was talking about sensitivity to initial conditions. gravity with more than two bodies is chaotic. Hence, to simulate it over even a relatively short span of time, you have to have an extremely powerful computer. Silly Reg. Your domain is still the macroscopic world.
In any case, what is to stop you using the same computer to calculate projections based on expansion?

Ok, well, I am a programmer. So here's what you can do. Give me a differential equation, or difference equation, for how mass expands (and space shrinks) in a local neighborhood, and I will write a simulation and simulate it.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2015
Anybody actually done this experiment? I must have missed it...

Oh, hey, an intelligent question. Well, I am not sure. I was hoping I could easily find one with 10 minute research, but google thinks I am asking simply about conservation of angular momentum. However, mass-energy equivalence HAS been established to a very high degree. It would be strange, indeed, if one form of energy just stoppesd being equivalent to mc^2.

Heat will cause the mass to expand, thus making it slightly larger

Haha! Nope! Heat causes SOME things to expand. It causes other things to contract. For example, when water ice melts, it expands.
Why don't you give in, furry, you cannot win by defending the indefensible, you know I am right.

Haha. No, it's quite the opposite, actually, Clever Hans, but then again, you never have been good at hypothesis formation, so I am not surprised that you are wrong about yet another thing.
Reg Mundy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2015
Yeh, the difference is that you use einstein to explain THE EFFECTS of gravity without saying what it actually is

...cuvature. Of space-time. Are you on drugs? Also, why on earth is saying that everything expands is more acceptable? Why would everything expand?

Oh, my apologies, I hadn't realised that you have access to proof of the existence of the space-time continuum. Would you mind directing me to that proof, I would love to see it. Otherwise, people might think it was just a figment of Einstein's imagination....
Why shouldn't everything expand? Demonstrably, photons do over time. Why should other elementary particles not? I suppose you have access to a similar "proof" particles do not expand?
In my philosophy, the expansion of particles provides us with what we call "TIME". What do you think TIME actually is? Have you ever thought about how the universe actually works, raised your head above your silly preoccupations with mathematical formulae? Grow up!
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2015
@furbrain
Heat will cause the mass to expand, thus making it slightly larger


Haha! Nope! Heat causes SOME things to expand. It causes other things to contract. For example, when water ice melts, it expands.

I contend that when heat makes things contract, it will cause a decrease in what you call "gravity". You contended otherwise, and as the instigator of this argument, it is your responsibility to provide proof. I suggest you dedicate your time to creating enormous balls of ice, measuring the "gravity" they generate, then melting them and repeating the measurement. Let me know the result. If you don't want to do this, then stop making unwarranted assumptions about "gravity" without any facts to back them up, exactly what you accuse me of doing.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2015
I contend that when heat makes things contract, it will cause a decrease in what you call "gravity".

But, now you have a problem, because you have just contradicted mass-energy equivalence--a well established law that, nothing, to date, has violated. So, in attempting to patch your "theory", you have, yet again, violated another physical law. You did this with demanding there are no hyperbolic/parabolic gravitational trajectories, and you just did it now, by demanding that mass-energy equivalence isn't true, just to keep your precious expansion idea afloat. In doing so, you theory is looking less and less like what is observed, and more and more like a departure from anything resembling reality.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2015
I contend that when heat makes things contract, it will cause a decrease in what you call "gravity". You contended otherwise, and as the instigator of this argument, it is your responsibility to provide proof.

Well, I am still looking for an experiment, so you'll need to have patience with that. But, no, the burden of proof isn't on me. You are the one who made the initial hypothesis, which contradicts known physical theories and observations, not I.
Think about it this way: You just demanded that mass-energy equivalence can be violated, which would be counter to what we've observed.
Now, imagine if I told you that there is a part of earth you can walk to where you fall up instead of down. It's likely nobody would have performed an experiment to test my claim, but you would be justified in calling me out, and asking me to offer any better proof than just my word. This is the same thing with your claims. Sorry.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2015
I suggest you dedicate your time to creating enormous balls of ice, measuring the "gravity" they generate, then melting them and repeating the measurement.

No, because I already have overwhelming evidence on my side. What is it with you crackpots? First, Johan F. Prins suggests I publish in a science journal just to correct rookie mistakes that he keeps posting to comments, and now you suggest I impractically dedicate my time to performing an experiment just to prove your crazy claim wrong. Sorry, Clever Hans, that's not how it works.

I'll note that you just made a falsifiable claim, which contradicts your earlier claim that your idea cannot be tested. That is--you claimed that the gravitational mass of a freezing ball of ice should be larger than that of a melting one--which, I must add, is crazy. You are the one making claims contrary with the current state of human knowledge. YOU devise your own experiment.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2015
Oh, my apologies, I hadn't realised that you have access to proof of the existence of the space-time continuum.

Hahahahaha. That was precious.
I'll let you in on a little known secret barely even whispered in the dark corners of the world. We exist--get this--in space! And not only that, but we also measure time...wait for it...to pass! What is reality, and how does it work?

In all seriousness, though, what I think you meant to say is that I had access to proof of the existence of CURVATURE in the space-time continuum, in which case, we have ample evidence. In fact, GPS satellites have to actually adjust their clocks to account for gravitational time dilation. We measure light to actually bend around massive objects. Oh, and there is this little gem, too: http://science.na...ay_epic/
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2015
Why shouldn't everything expand? Demonstrably, photons do over time.

Haha. No they don't. I don't know why you keep riffing on the tired light hypothesis, especially since it was shown to be incorrect a long time ago.
What do you think TIME actually is?

I don't know, but it sure as hell isn't from expansion of particles, since that doesn't happen.
Have you ever thought about how the universe actually works,

ALL. THE. TIME.
raised your head above your silly preoccupations with mathematical formulae?

Oh, no! Describing the universe with precision? The horror!
And by the way, it isn't a silly preoccupation with formulae, so much as a begrudging respect for its utility. You might have noticed my tendency to make silly algebraic errors. I'll forget a negative sign, or omit a square root sign. But that's because I don't think algebraically, but geometric/algorithmically. I would describe your thought process as rote learning combined with utter failure.
Reg Mundy
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2015
@furbrain
And by the way, it isn't a silly preoccupation with formulae, so much as a begrudging respect for its utility. You might have noticed my tendency to make silly algebraic errors. I'll forget a negative sign, or omit a square root sign. But that's because I don't think algebraically, but geometric/algorithmically. I would describe your thought process as rote learning combined with utter failure.

Oh dear, here we go again. As soon as you start losing an argument, you resort to miss-quoting me , out-of-context quotes, red herrings and personal insults. You have made half-a-dozen unsubstantiated claims in your last few comments, I call you out to provide proof (does heat actually increase "GRAVITY"? There is just as much "proof" that it decreases it, though I suspect the opposite), yet you constantly accuse me of making unsubstantiated claims.
(contd.)
Reg Mundy
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2015
Finally, as further evidence of your immaturity, you bring Johan into the discussion because you can't leave alone the fact that he defeated you, and you only avoided utter rout by obfuscation, red herrings, inciting personal invective and going off on multiple tangents.
In conclusion,
Why shouldn't everything expand? Demonstrably, photons do over time.


Haha. No they don't. I don't know why you keep riffing on the tired light hypothesis, especially since it was shown to be incorrect a long time ago.

The "proofs" that tired light hypothesis was incorrect were as full of holes as Swiss cheese.
I suppose you will say that expansion theory was disproved by the "professor" who stated that orbits were impossible because once the smaller body dipped below the "horizon" there was no way it could be induced to return toward "earth". That was long accepted as "proof", despite the absolutely obvious logic flaw in his argument.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2015
Oh dear, here we go again. As soon as you start losing an argument,

Nope. Not good at hypothesis formation. Not good at all.
you resort to miss-quoting me

Your words were, (and I quote ;))
Have you ever thought about how the universe actually works, raised your head above your silly preoccupations with mathematical formulae

Are you, maybe Reg Mundy from an alternate timeline?
. You have made half-a-dozen unsubstantiated claims in your last few comments,

Half a dozen? Like mass energy equivalence is true (because, if it is true, then a spinning object would gain more mass. What is inference, and how does it work?)
I call you out to provide proof

Like...oh my God! That's what I did to you! We could be matching twins brah! Fist bump!
(does heat actually increase "GRAVITY"?

What is mass-energy equivalence, and how does it work? What is inertial/gravitational mass equivalence, and how does IT work?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2015
@Reg Mundy
does heat actually increase "GRAVITY"?

In all seriousness, though. Look up mass-energy equivalence, and gravitational mass/inertial mass equivalence. These things have been overwhelmingly confirmed. So, even if we haven't done an experiment to confirm that a rotating body's mass increases (which, by the way, I have no information on), the very fact that we have overwhelmingly confirmed these two things means that there is no good reason to assume that it fails for rotational energy, or thermal energy. They could, yes (assuming no experiments have been done, WHICH WE YET DON'T KNOW), but evidence OVERWHELMINGLY suggests that they don't.

So, what you are suggesting is like claiming that there is an area of the universe in which momentum isn't conserved. If we haven't looked, that might be true, but there is no rational reason to consider it a viable possibility.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2015
Finally, as further evidence of your immaturity, you bring Johan into the discussion because you can't leave alone the fact that he defeated you

You ARE from an alternate timeline, aren't you?
Oh wait. I don't suck at hypothesis formation like you do, so I just realized that a likelier alternative is that you are delusional--and lazy. I shouldn't forget lazy.
The "proofs" that tired light hypothesis was incorrect were as full of holes as Swiss cheese.

Oh? Well, maybe instead of just declaring them to be full of holes, and thinking we'll believe you, you might explain what those holes are?
Jesus Christ, Clever Hans, you sure do suck at this whole rational argument thing.

By the way, I am still waiting for that formula from you, which would enable to me to simulate your expansion hypothesis. I am perfectly willing to do that, if you just provide a dynamic equation for an arbitrary configuration of mass/space.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2015
I suppose you will say that expansion theory was disproved by the "professor"

Who?
who stated that orbits were impossible because once the smaller body dipped below the "horizon" there was no way it could be induced to return toward "earth"

What smaller body? Huh?

Are you saying that I would say that expansion theory is disproven because of escape velocity? Well yes. That HAS been a major contention of mine all along, seeing as we observe trajectories that look exactly like hyperbolic/parabolic trajectories, and have no reason to believe that they aren't.

In fact, we have absolutely no evidence that gravitational fields require objects to return. Why do I say that? Well, for one thing, because we have sent plenty of objects away from Earth, and the solar system. We have observed comets, which entered the solar system once, never to return. We see evidence of galaxies that have punch through other galaxies and kept going. (continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2015
@Reg Mundy
(continued)
I don't think you understand just how untenable you make your position when you suggest all objects return under gravity. In general, they don't. Hell, even some orbiting objects don't even return. The moon is actually drifting away from us at a rate of 3.58 cm per year! Everything we know about gravity tells us that hyperbolic/parabolic trajectories exist, but please do continue to cleave to your silly notion. After all, how can you continue to believe in expaaaansion, when one of its fundamental pillars turns out to be completely false? We wouldn't want you actually changing your mind about anything, now would we?
Reg Mundy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2015
@furbrain
In fact, we have absolutely no evidence that gravitational fields require objects to return.

In fact, we have absolutely no evidence thar graviitational fields allow 0bjects not to eventually return! All your evidence to the contrary merely quotes examples of objects moving frrom the so-called gravitic field of one object to the influence of another.
One of the tenets of the article at tthe start of this thread is that there is a "preferred" IRF for objects (i.e. the IRF of the most massive body) which infers that the system of orbiting object and massive body must be considered as one composite object (a basic tenet of expansion theory) and you don't seem to have picked any argument with that......yet.
Reg Mundy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2015
@furbrain

Look up mass-energy equivalence, and gravitational mass/inertial mass equivalence. These things have been overwhelmingly confirmed. So, even if we haven't done an experiment to confirm that a rotating body's mass increases, the very fact that we have overwhelmingly confirmed these two things means that there is no good reason to assume that it fails for rotational energy, or thermal energy. They could, yes (assuming no experiments have been done, WHICH WE YET DON'T KNOW), but evidence OVERWHELMINGLY suggests that they don't.
Once again you cite suggestions as fact at the same time as admitting they are NOT FACTS!
Suppose I suggest that there is an intimate relationship between the energy and velocity of an object and time as measured by a "stationary" observer. Suppose i suggest that the heat of an object affects the passage of time and that heat is not only the "vibration" of particles but a a manifestaion of an aspect of "time"? These things cannot be disproved.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2015
In fact, we have absolutely no evidence thar graviitational fields allow 0bjects not to eventually return!

Well, in all cases we've observed, no human has every sprouted wings, but we have no evidence that they won't!

Oh wait, that's not how it works...

To the contrary, we've have AMPLE evidence that objects don't eventually return. If the moon has been receding from us for as long as we've measured it, we have no reason to believe it will stop receding from us. Sure, it could, but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WILL. This is also the case with all the comets and other astronomical bodies we've every observed to enter the solar system on a trajectory that looks hyperbolic/parabolic. There is simply no evidence that there trajectories will, in the future, no longer be hyperbolic/parabolic.

Hence, my analogy. These trajectories changing is like humans sprouting wings. It could happen, but based on what we've seen so far, there's no reason to believe it will.
Humbled1
not rated yet Feb 01, 2015
Interesting. But suggesting motion is not relative throws everything we think we know out of whack.

And using GPS as an example seems to be a poor analogy, as the earth is not accelerating relative to the GPS satellites, as it is not on a curved path around them.

But still, it is creative...



Actually it is. The "Curvature" of a small circle is greater than a large circle, therefore the curvature of the Earth (sphere w/ circle cross-section) is greater than the curvature of a stable orbit. Therefore the gravitational field and the direction component of motion vector changes faster.
Humbled1
not rated yet Feb 01, 2015
In contrast, Einstein's theory of special relativity describes reciprocal time dilation between two moving objects, such that both moving objects' times appear to be slowed down relative to each other.
The new paper makes the case that instead of being reciprocal, time dilation in response to movement is directional, with only the moving object undergoing time dilation.


The Planetary Clock thought experiment easily disproves reciprocal time dilation.

Since the Universe exists absolutely, there actually must be at least one absolute reference object or dimension in reality, whether or not we can understand or describe it.

I tend to agree that the past and future are "real" and just inaccessible or mostly inaccessible. Maybe on the "Quantum" level, if there even really is such a thing.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.