Where is the universe hiding its missing mass?

Where is the universe hiding its missing mass?
Credit: Chandra X-ray Center

Astronomers have spent decades looking for something that sounds like it would be hard to miss: about a third of the "normal" matter in the Universe. New results from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory may have helped them locate this elusive expanse of missing matter.

From independent, well-established observations, scientists have confidently calculated how much normal matter—meaning hydrogen, helium and other elements—existed just after the Big Bang. In the time between the first few minutes and the first billion years or so, much of the normal matter made its way into cosmic dust, gas and objects such as stars and planets that telescopes can see in the present-day Universe.

The problem is that when astronomers add up the mass of all the normal matter in the present-day Universe about a third of it can't be found. (This missing matter is distinct from the still-mysterious .)

One idea is that the missing mass gathered into gigantic strands or filaments of warm (temperature less than 100,000 Kelvin) and hot (temperature greater than 100,000 Kelvin) gas in intergalactic space. These filaments are known by as the "warm-hot intergalactic medium" or WHIM. They are invisible to optical light telescopes, but some of the warm gas in filaments has been detected in ultraviolet light.

Using a , researchers have found new and strong evidence for the hot component of the WHIM based on data from Chandra and other telescopes.

"If we find this missing mass, we can solve one of the biggest conundrums in astrophysics," said Orsolya Kovacs of the Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian (CfA) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Where did the universe stash so much of its matter that makes up stuff like stars and planets and us?"

Astronomers used Chandra to look for and study filaments of warm gas lying along the path to a quasar, a bright source of X-rays powered by a rapidly growing supermassive black hole. This quasar is located about 3.5 billion light years from Earth. If the WHIM's hot gas component is associated with these filaments, some of the X-rays from the quasar would be absorbed by that hot gas. Therefore, they looked for a signature of hot gas imprinted in the quasar's X-ray light detected by Chandra.

Where is the universe hiding its missing mass?
Light Path (Credit: NASA/CXC/K. Williamson, Springel et al.

One of the challenges of this method is that the signal of absorption by the WHIM is weak compared to the total amount of X-rays coming from the quasar. When searching the entire spectrum of X-rays at different wavelengths, it is difficult to distinguish such weak absorption features—actual signals of the WHIM—from random fluctuations.

Kovacs and her team overcame this problem by focusing their search only on certain parts of the X-ray light spectrum, reducing the likelihood of false positives. They did this by first identifying galaxies near the line of sight to the quasar that are located at the same distance from Earth as regions of warm gas detected from ultraviolet data. With this technique they identified 17 possible filaments between the quasar and us, and obtained their distances.

Because of the expansion of the universe, which stretches out light as it travels, any absorption of X-rays by matter in these filaments will be shifted to redder wavelengths. The amounts of the shifts depend on the known distances to the filament, so the team knew where to search in the spectrum for absorption from the WHIM.

"Our technique is similar in principle to how you might conduct an efficient search for animals in the vast plains of Africa," said Akos Bogdan, a co-author also from CfA. "We know that animals need to drink, so it makes sense to search around watering holes first."

While narrowing their search helped, the researchers also had to overcome the problem of the faintness of the X-ray absorption. So, they boosted the signal by adding spectra together from 17 filaments, turning a 5.5-day-long observation into the equivalent of almost 100 days' worth of data. With this technique they detected oxygen with characteristics suggesting it was in a gas with a temperature of about one million degrees Kelvin.

By extrapolating from these observations of oxygen to the full set of elements, and from the observed region to the local universe, the researchers report they can account for the complete amount of missing matter. At least in this particular case, the missing matter had been hiding in the WHIM after all.

"We were thrilled that we were able to track down some of this missing matter" said co-author Randall Smith, also of CfA. "In the future we can apply this same method to other quasar data to confirm that this long-standing mystery has at last been cracked."

A paper describing these results was published in the Astrophysical Journal on February 13, 2019.


Explore further

Researchers find last of universe's missing ordinary matter

More information: Orsolya E. Kovacs et al. Detection of the Missing Baryons toward the Sightline of H1821+643. arXiv:1812.04625 [astro-ph.CO]. arxiv.org/abs/1812.04625
Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Citation: Where is the universe hiding its missing mass? (2019, February 15) retrieved 24 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-02-universe-mass.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1412 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 15, 2019
Maybe the missing mass is somehow related to the kinetic energy of the stuff we can see?

Feb 15, 2019
Welcome to the Plasma Universe, where the cosmic web of electric currents drive the largest scales processes just as they do all the way down.

Feb 15, 2019
Welcome to the Plasma Universe, where the cosmic web of electric currents drive the largest scales processes just as they do all the way down.


Dead hypothesis, long since debunked.

Feb 15, 2019
Except for the confirmation afforded by numerous observations, such as the above article.

Feb 15, 2019
Except for the confirmation afforded by numerous observations, such as the above article.


Nope. Nothing to do with PC woo.

Feb 15, 2019
Everything to do with PC as the cosmic web is an explicit prediction of the theory. The cosmic web hes no place in standard guesswork, only ad hoc a posteriori epicycles were conjured up to fit it to observation. As usual.

Feb 15, 2019
Everything to do with PC as the cosmic web is an explicit prediction of the theory. The cosmic web hes no place in standard guesswork, only ad hoc a posteriori epicycles were conjured up to fit it to observation. As usual.


Wrong. The predictions of WHIM in filamentary structures in the galactic halo is a direct result of modelling. And those observations match the models very well. And those models that predict the distribution use dark matter. Without it, the models fail. In the PC woo, there is no DM halo, and they have no model.

Feb 15, 2019
This is pretty good confirmation of the WHIM, at the column concentration needed to explain the missing baryons. All that's needed now is confirmation with some more quasars. The instrumentation is already in place; all that's needed is the observing time.

Feb 15, 2019
The Network Behind the Cosmic Web
Coutinho, B. C. et al.
https://arxiv.org...3236.pdf

Feb 15, 2019
"Maybe the missing mass is somehow related to the kinetic energy of the stuff we can see?"
Maybe the missing DARK mass is somehow related to the kinetic energy of the stuff we can see?

Feb 15, 2019
Everything to do with PC as the cosmic web is an explicit prediction of the theory. The cosmic web hes no place in standard guesswork, only ad hoc a posteriori epicycles were conjured up to fit it to observation. As usual.


The EU discombobulates facts from greats like Alfven, a supposed hero of the EU contradicts them constantly. Example, Alfven proposed the Alfven Waves which are magnetic field heat bombs blasted out from the Sun's surface heating the Corona to millions of degrees K. But EU says the hot corona is from galactic currents heating the Sun.

Feb 15, 2019
I lean more toward there being a flaw in our current model, than there being "missing matter".

Feb 15, 2019
Epicycles.

Feb 15, 2019
Dark matter is a supersolid that fills 'empty' space, strongly interacts with ordinary matter and is displaced by ordinary matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter. The state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter is gravity.

The supersolid dark matter displaced by a galaxy pushes back, causing the stars in the outer arms of the galaxy to orbit the galactic center at the rate in which they do.

Displaced supersolid dark matter is curved spacetime.

In the Bullet Cluster collision the dark matter has not separated from the ordinary matter. The collision is analogous to two boats that collide, the boats slow down and their bow waves continue to propagate. The water has not separated from the boats, the bow waves have. In the Bullet Cluster collision the galaxy's dark matter displacement waves have separated from the colliding galaxies, causing the light to lense

Feb 15, 2019
The apparently 'missing mass' is another epicycle of the flawed GR/QM based cosmology like the apparently constant (vs. true) speed of light C and distorted time/distance concepts. An example is the age of the present decelerated expansion phase of Riemann 4-sphere (Einstein's starting point of GR) believed to be 13.8 B yrs under the postulate that the ticking rate of modern atomic clocks and all other atomic processes has been constant since BB to extend the 4-radius R4 to its present value of 13.8 Bly. Feynman noticed the 'biggest mystery' that at BB the positive motion energy of the total mass in the closed 3-D space as the surface of 4-sphere equaled exactly its negative gravitational energy. Suntola noticed since 1970's that this 0-energy balance in dynamic universe defines C=C4 as nonlinear functions of R4, absolute cosmic time T4 and its ticking frequency F4. Present T4= 2/3 13.8 =9.2 B yrs - GR based cosmology has also lost 1/3 of its age since BB!

Feb 15, 2019
An idler's thought.
"... Because of the expansion of the universe, which stretches out light as it travels, ..."

Contrary to the tired light loons. Would this "stretching" of Light, actually result in speeding it up?
Energy in, acceleration out.

Then again, which is the cause & which is the result?

Another improbable explanation of one of the mutitude of irrational reasons the expansion of the Universe is accelerating?

Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?

Feb 15, 2019
With no WIMP baryons to be found, it looks bleak for standard model physics, the only approach to dark matter and even the dark energy question are interlinked involved in gravity in the equations of gravity.

Feb 15, 2019
@rrwillsj,

Light that is stretched loses energy. When the frequency of light is decreased, thus increasing its wavelength, the energy in that light -- EM radiation -- is decreased. That is fundamental.

The higher the frequency of light, the greater its energy. The lower the frequency of light, the less energy it contains.

Feb 15, 2019
As a corollary of this, it's obvious that energy is not conserved across non-consistent frames of reference. Lots of people trip over this one.

Feb 15, 2019
An idler's thought.
"... Because of the expansion of the universe, which stretches out light as it travels, ..."

Contrary to the tired light loons. Would this "stretching" of Light, actually result in speeding it up?
Energy in, acceleration out.

Then again, which is the cause & which is the result?

Another improbable explanation of one of the mutitude of irrational reasons the expansion of the Universe is accelerating?

Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?

Feb 15, 2019
Where is the universe hiding its missing mass?

Here?

http://www.funnyf...uppy.jpg


Feb 15, 2019
The investigation of the large-scale structure of the World revealed its high inhomogeneity. During the last couple of decades, a rich picture of groups, clusters and superclusters of the galaxies separated by a number of huge empty voids was released. The foam-like structure becomes more and more clear. The building blocks of the large-scale structure are superclusters and voids which are forming the supercluster-void network. This network has pronounced filamentary structure.
https://www.acade...he_World

Feb 15, 2019
Reverse kick in pants for TRUE decelerating expansion due to 0-energe balance of DU is analogous to the APPARENT constancy of C vs. TRUE decelerating value as function of sqrt(R4) and T4=f[1/C4)^3]. The energy of one quanta in Planck emission at time T4_past is linear with 1/C4 -so it is always higher than emitted energy at receival time T4_today. The emitted energy corresponding to C4(T4_past) is preserved during its travel although its wavelength is expanded at the same rate as R4 - resulting in the mistaken interpretation of GR based SN1a data of 'Planck dilution'. This caused the 'tired light' or Planck dilution error of GR based brightness factor of 1/(1+z) to explain 1998 SN1a data. Another factor 1/(1+z) error was caused by GR static vs. DU dynamic distance measure of the emitted/received travel distance. These GR systematic errors were compensated by the mistaken GR cosmological constant and DE acceleration epicycle, given 2011 Nobel despite annual side-by-side DU comparisons.

Feb 15, 2019
None of the trolls can explain why the result came out to the exact prediction by theory.

They're all trying to deflect and raise their whining to avoid addressing the fact that the theory has turned out correct. Standard trolling.

Feb 16, 2019
"None of the trolls can explain why the result came out to the exact prediction by theory".

This is the key point of general estimation and inverse theory of Gaussian estimation and general inverse theory in array (unified matrix and tensor) calculus: Both biased and unbiased functional or physical models can predict the observed values in the sense of least squares but the used parameters themselves (vs. their projections on the observables) may be biased in the fashion of epicycles of Copernicus Sun vs Earth centered model. The main "epicycle' of GR/QM is the postulate of constancy of C taking the physics and standard cosmology foundations back to Ptolemy times thousands of years ago. Suntola's DU physical model in 4/5, 10/11-D etc. nested dimensions is a step forward from Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Leibnitz & Newton times by cosmic expansion of GR/QM that are valid only in local energy frames but fail at cosmic distances beyond our galaxy.

Feb 16, 2019
None of this means anything if the theory predicts the results. Especially if there's no other theory that does.

Feb 16, 2019
Interesting confirmation of last year's find of the missing normal matter (that the article linked to: https://phys.org/...ary.html ).

Epicycles


How can a basic observation be 'an epicycle' ? How can a test of a basic prediction be 'an epicycle'?

It can't. Da Schneib put it best: "None of the trolls can explain why the result came out to the exact prediction by theory."

But by rejecting the evidence at hand - or C&P earlier comments of ideas that did not make it against data - they confirm that trolls are not understanding the physics at hand or are even interested in science. Even the sad crackpot that constantly links to a vanity press where he or she was scammed out of money for no gain show us a disinterest in learning what science is and is not.

But please go on, even if it is hard to tell if we are supposed to laugh or cry over the behavior. As long as there are science interested to vote down or at times interject facts.

Feb 16, 2019
Even the sad crackpot that constantly links to a vanity press where he or she was scammed out of money for no gain show us a disinterest in learning what science is and is not.


"scammed" ???????

.........what the hell do ya call the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on all the so-called research for inferred DARK MATTER that has never yet been discovered, and holds no promise in the future to show observational evidence this cosmic fairy dust exists. But you don't bitch about that being a scam do you?

As far as you're concerned, the immutable fantasies of funny farm Pop-Cosmology transcend criticism because they are YOUR FUNNY FARM FACTS.

Just admit you don't like FACTS that detract from your immutable DM fantasies. Anything that detracts from your immutable fantasies are a scam as far as you're concerned.

Feb 16, 2019

"How can a basic observation be 'an epicycle' ? How can a test of a basic prediction be 'an epicycle'?"

These are key questions where the common sense math of surveyors revealed some flaws in general inverse and Gaussian estimation theories some 50 yrs ago, resulting in the loop inverse expansion of Gaussian math statistics, involving the unification of matrix and tensor calculus by correcting Einstein's summation convention of indical tensor notations. Start from the example of leveling or measuring all 3 differences among 3 points to determine their elevations using rank-deficient least squares. The adjusted absolute elevations has an infinite set of solutions in the same fashion as the TRUE value of C when locally measured by atomic clocks - their frequency is slowing down at the same rate as the TRUE value C. Only the local APPARENT constant value C is unbiasedly estimable, see Talvio2.pdf 2006 paper of lfs.fi or 6/1974 Rauhala KTH thesis of array algebra/loop inverses.

Feb 16, 2019
Even the...


"scammed" ??

.........what do ya call the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on all the so-called research for inferred DARK MATTER that has never yet been discovered, and holds no promise in the future to show observational evidence this cosmic fairy dust exists. But you don't bitch about that being a scam do you?

As far as you're concerned, the immutable fantasies of funny farm Pop-Cosmology transcend criticism because they are YOUR FUNNY FARM FACTS.

Just admit you don't like FACTS that detract from your immutable DM fantasies. Anything that detracts from your immutable fantasies are a scam as far as you're concerned.
says Benni

Many in the science/research community know already that Dark Matter/Energy is not working out for them. But they still persist in the pretense anyway - because to admit to failure in their search for the 'faerie dust' is to admit defeat - which would make the public wonder if they know what they're doing.

Feb 16, 2019
The dark matter and dark energy are confirmed multiple ways. @SRU is lying again. So's @Benni.

Feb 17, 2019
DU has a simple explanation for what is understood as DM in terms of GR but DE and accelerated expansion is an epicycle of the basic flaws of GR/QM as repeatedly proven since 1998 SN1a data.

Feb 17, 2019
The dark matter and dark energy are confirmed multiple ways. @SRU is lying again. So's @Benni.


Prove it without faking it.


Feb 17, 2019
Wikipaedia is the poor man's source of information - often filled with errors. Science journals, science papers, validated and credible sources with documented observable evidence. Prove it.

Feb 17, 2019
It's sourced, as you would admit if you weren't a troll.

There is no proof in science; there is, however, good evidence and it's detailed there, and I'll be happy to stuff it up your ass if you insist.

We can start here:

https://www.aanda...2266.pdf

There's about a hundred of them.

Why doesn't it surprise me that someone who can't successfully use teh google successfully to find the answer to

2 + 2 / 2 = ?

in five days doesn't understand how Wikipedia works?

Feb 17, 2019
Oh, look, here's another one: http://ned.ipac.c...mes.html

Feb 17, 2019
Gee, and here's another one: http://articles.a...ype=.pdf

You sure you want all of these? It's liable to take a few days.

Guess you don't understand Wikipedia all that well. You know those funny numbers and stuff? They're links to source data. You prolly should have bothered to find that out before you ran your stinking pie hole.

Feb 17, 2019
Oh, and here's another one: http://articles.a...ype=.pdf

You know we haven't even finished with M31 in Andromeda yet. We're gonna be here all night just on that.

Does your asshole hurt yet?

Feb 17, 2019
Here, maybe this will help your butthurt:

http://articles.a...ype=.pdf

Feb 17, 2019
Hey, look! Here's another one: http://articles.a...ype=.pdf

Looks to me like you're gonna get kinda stretched with all the articles you asked for, butt hey, it's your asshole!

Feb 17, 2019
Oh, look! Another one:

https://arxiv.org.../9508025

Feb 17, 2019
And gee whillikers, another one: http://articles.a...ype=.pdf

Feb 17, 2019
Oh, and hey, here's another one: https://arxiv.org...001.3447

You really sure you want all of these? You could, you know, just read the Wikipedia article and follow all the reference links.

Your asshole would hurt less.

Butt that's OK, I'll be here all night.

It's fun playing with trolls.

Feb 17, 2019
Oh, and look, another one: https://arxiv.org.../9704274

We're not gonna finish the article just on dark matter tonight.

Butt hey, you assed! Ass and ye shall receive.

Feb 17, 2019
Lookee here: https://arxiv.org...09.05917

I think you better relax and pull your cheeks apart, it's looking kinda crowded in there.

Feb 17, 2019
Hey, another one! https://arxiv.org...10.06183

Now, shall I go get more? I'll wait; it's a hassle.

Feb 17, 2019
Here's the funny part: that is a partial listing of the sources for the Wikipedia article on galaxy rotation curves, which is only one of the articles on dark matter. It has over 30 citations. I only used the ones for on-line available materials; there are many more from books and paywalled articles. I can get those too if you like. Then we'll move on to the second major piece of evidence for dark matter: velocity dispersions of stars in observed galaxies.

Meanwhile, looks like you got some reading of all these peer-reviewed articles published in the scholarly journals to do. I'd say about a week.

Feb 17, 2019
Wikipedia is better. It has references, and they're very often to scholarly papers, peer reviewed and published in the scholarly literature.

So the next time you think you're going to bloviate about Wikipedia, perhaps you'll remember how much your asshole hurt after this time.

Stupid babbling asshole.

Feb 17, 2019
Next, the troll will claim they're all "Wikipedia sources" because it's too stupid to notice they're from the Astrophysics Journal, or the Journal of the Netherlands Astronomy Society, or Astronomy and Astrophysics.

Blathering foolish asshole.

Feb 17, 2019
Welcome to the Plasma Universe, where the cosmic web of electric currents drive the largest scales processes just as they do all the way down
Filaments... extension cords... electric fences... thors hammer... it all makes so much sense...
https://youtu.be/d1DwTcSlgqs
https://youtu.be/cjImFYf2Vzc

That song always makes otto cry boohoo

Feb 17, 2019
Meanwhile, looks like you got some reading of all these peer-reviewed articles published in the scholarly journals to do. I'd say about a week.


Here schneibo, you can do this one in about ten minutes ± :

Physicists Keep Trying — and Failing — to Find Dark Matter in Dark Places

https://www.lives...led.html

"The latest news, however, is not good for DAMA. On Wednesday (Dec. 5), researchers at the Cosine-100 detector in South Korea published a paper in the journal Nature reporting that they'd seen no yearly shift in their newer, fancier detector. That's a big deal, because Cosine-100's light sensors are watching underground chunks of sodium iodide, just like DAMA's. So if DAMA had found a real result, it should show up in Cosine-100 as well."

..........so much for all the outdated links you posted above,

Feb 17, 2019
None of them is outdated, @Benni. The evidence is what it is.

And like usual, here you are lying again.

Feb 17, 2019
None of them is outdated, @Benni. The evidence is what it is.

And like usual, here you are lying again.


Your fantasy world of Pop-Cosmology is everything you live for in this chatroom, and is what the "lying" is all about.

With YOU it's just one more "lying" Pop-Cosmology fantasy to the next. It has gotten so bad with you that it took you how many months to get somebody to do this for you:
2 + 2 / 2 = ?
Yeah, you had to submit it to smarter people in the chatroom because you're unable to do 6th grade math.......give you the pointy cap award, dunce.

Feb 17, 2019
That song always makes otto cry boohoo

Awhhhh, blotto! That is so sweet of you. And so near Valentine's Day, you must care so...

These filaments are known by astronomers as the "warm-hot intergalactic medium" or WHIM.

In other words plasma, the physics of which are accurately described by Alfvén and Peratt. The purveyors of The Plasma Universe and plasma cosmology. So yes, it all makes very good sense.

Feb 17, 2019

In other words plasma, the physics of which are accurately described by Alfvén and Peratt. The purveyors of The Plasma Universe and plasma cosmology. So yes, it all makes very good sense.


Wrong. The filaments match very well what was predicted by scientists using models that include DM. Take the DM out of the models, and it looks a whole lot different. So, no, Peratt and Alfven have squat to do with this observation. It is more confirmation that DM exists.

Feb 17, 2019
Your fantasy world of Pop-Cosmology is everything you live for in this chatroom, and is what the "lying" is all about.


You still here, you ignorant tosspot? Why? You know Jack shit about any science, and are totally innumerate. Go away, you waste of oxygen.
And it isn't a chatroom, dickhead - it is a comments section. A chatroom would be where you go to discuss things with people who have a similar interest, or other things in common. Such as Dunning-Kruger syndrome.


Feb 17, 2019
The filaments match very well what was predicted by scientists using models that include DM.

Because the plasma ignoramuses conveniently place the faerie dust just where they need it to match observation, a posteriori.
Or, one can simply apply the known physics of plasma to achieve the filamentary aspects of space plasma. That which Alfvén did in the 1930's to predict the filamentary structure of the Universe, a half century before the plasma ignoramuses did using faerie dust. Oh, lest we forget, the plasma ignoramuses did this after the filamentary nature of the Universe was confirmed, ad hoc and a posteriori. Typical of the plasma ignoramuses predictive ability.

Feb 17, 2019
@Benni has only one trick: lie.

And it never works.

Feb 17, 2019
This Dark Matter/Dark Energy obsession needs to be stopped for the good of physics; it just doesn't hold water. It's a classic case of trying desperately to salvage a beautiful theory that doesn't match observation.

So let's have another go at salvaging the theory? Gravity is considered an emergent feature of curved spacetime. Often, the rubber sheet analogy is used to describe the effect and that's a problem, since it's seen only as a function of mass (and only seen as an effect on a plane).

Locally we observe acceleration in the direction of mass and Newton describes it, but it doesn't work well on intergalactic scales. Why is this? Either a lot of mass is missing, or gravity (spacetime curvature) does different things in the extreme absence of mass observed between galaxies. Spacetime doesn't just curve down in the presence of mass, it curves up in it's absence. The upward curvature is what we've dubbed Dark Energy.

Feb 17, 2019
Try visualizing two galaxies with enough distance (vacuum) between them. Now, visualize a spacetime curvature who's Y axis dimension (using the 2D "rubber sheet analogy) increases with the distance between the masses. Within a dense field, the increased curvature is negligible but likely observable; at some distance even local masses will cease attracting. At distances beyond that, they begin repelling. At large distances they measurably begin accelerating away from each other. Hence an expanding universe accelerating in all dimensions.

Come on guys, this isn't rocket science :)

Feb 17, 2019
Locally we observe acceleration in the direction of mass


"acceleration" of what? Certainly not electro-magnetic waves.

Spacetime doesn't just curve down in the presence of mass, it curves up in it's absence. The upward curvature is what we've dubbed Dark Energy.


Presuming photon deflection occurs as an electro-magnetic wave passes into the gravity field of a body of mass & curves as Einstein's photon deflection calculations predict would occur, what is this "curves up in it's absence" effect? If there is an absence of a gravitating mass, how does curvature of any kind occur whether you want to define it as "up" or "down"?

What is your theory that "upward curvature" is Dark Energy?

Feb 17, 2019
"acceleration" of what? Certainly not electro-magnetic waves.


Photons (electromagnetic waves) are known to bend around spacetime curvatures. See gravity lensing. Acceleration is a Newtonian construct I used for clarity. Most masses are described as "accelerating" towards one another in a spacetime curvature.

Spacetime doesn't just curve down in the presence of mass, it curves up in it's absence. The upward curvature is what we've dubbed Dark Energy.


what is this "curves up in it's absence" effect? If there is an absence of a gravitating mass, how does curvature of any kind occur whether you want to define it as "up" or "down"?

What is your theory that "upward curvature" is Dark Energy?


If the curvature increases with the distance between masses, we should observe a diminishing effect of gravity (curvature) with distance, though possibly so small as to be unmeasurable on very small (intragalactic) scales. (cont.)

Feb 17, 2019
I really screwed up on the multi quotes. Sorry. Arcane.

As the distance between masses increases, eventually spacetime begins curving up rather than down, and as distance grows the curvature becomes negative, accelerating distant masses away from each other. This is "dark energy". It's an emergent feature of curved spacetime.

Feb 17, 2019
It's very difficult to explain this without some sort of graphic and I think even a graphic might be hard to follow since it's going to require at least four dimensions I'd guess.

Think of it as a rubber sheet again. Usually we visualize the effects of mass causing dimples in the sheet and flattening out between masses on the sheet, but it's really not ever flat when the distances aren't large. When they get large enough, it actually starts to flatten, then starts forming ridges between the clustered masses (think of them as a bowl of blueberries). As the distance between masses grows, the ridges between them gets higher, forcing the lumps of mass together and the distant masses apart. Distant masses accelerate away from each other, hence Dark Energy.

Does that make any more sense?

Feb 17, 2019
As the distance between masses increases, eventually spacetime begins curving up rather than down, and as distance grows the curvature becomes negative


It sounds like you're saying that subsequent to a particle of mass passing through the stronger field of a larger gravitating body, that it will suddenly take a turn in a different direction than the one it was deflected into by the larger gravitating body? Is this what you're saying?


Feb 17, 2019
@BackBurner
I've always admired the flexibility of the "Rubber Sheet Analogy" as it perfectly represents the Gravity Well surrounding Mass.
Motion/Momentum is equal to the gravitational push/pull effect of mass toward mass. At intergalactic distances between material objects such as planets and Stars, the flexibility of Space (the Rubber Sheet) provides and allows the Motion/Momentum of eg. planets, clusters and Stars to move toward each other, no matter the distance due to the flexibility of Space. It may be that EMFields help to move them along lines of currents - similar to information along axons and synapses leading from neurons in brains.

There is no Dark Matter or Dark Energy nor is there any need for such faerie dust. It is SPACE ITSELF that moves mass toward or away from other mass. Gravity only establishes the links between 2 or more bodies of mass, while Space makes the journey smooth and enables the Motion and Momentum of each body.

Feb 17, 2019
As the distance between masses increases, eventually spacetime begins curving up rather than down, and as distance grows the curvature becomes negative


It sounds like you're saying that subsequent to a particle of mass passing through the stronger field of a larger gravitating body, that it will suddenly take a turn in a different direction than the one it was deflected into by the larger gravitating body? Is this what you're saying?


It will appear to have taken a turn. That's how we describe the effect we've named "gravitational lensing" and observed to occur around distant galaxies.

Feb 17, 2019
Gravity only establishes the links between 2 or more bodies of mass, while Space makes the journey smooth and enables the Motion and Momentum of each body.


That's the general idea, yes. Local objects influence each other (are "attracted") by a local curvature of spacetime; they're all blueberries in the same bowl. But they're in a bowl with a rim higher than the lowest blueberry in that bowl. They can't escape the bowl. This is "Dark Matter".

Bowls that are "close" to each other may still be in a larger bowl with a higher rim than clusters them. When the bowls get too far apart, they fall down the sides of the largest bowl and start moving away from each other. This is "Dark Energy".

Feb 17, 2019
Gravitational lensing is only light that is deflected off of mass and is redirected toward another line of sight.

Feb 17, 2019
Gravitational lensing is only light that is deflected off of mass and is redirected toward another line of sight.


I'm not certain I can understand that analogy.

Feb 17, 2019
It sounds like you're saying that subsequent to a particle of mass passing through the stronger field of a larger gravitating body, that it will suddenly take a turn in a different direction than the one it was deflected into by the larger gravitating body? Is this what you're saying?


It will appear to have taken a turn. That's how we describe the effect we've named "gravitational lensing" and observed to occur around distant galaxies.


BB, you're confusing the issues here. You start off talking about the effects of two gravitating masses on one another, then mixing "gravitational lensing" into that, two separate issues.

Here, as Egg correctly points out:

Gravitational lensing is only light that is deflected off of mass and is redirected toward another line of sight


Feb 17, 2019
Awhhhh, blotto! That is so sweet of you. And so near Valentine's Day, you must care so...
Crackpot idiot pseudoscience theories make me cry as well so what can I say?

Feb 17, 2019
Sorry BackBurner,, but your "blueberries in a bowl" analogy doesn't explain why bodies of mass move/drift apart, at sometimes very large distances. I don't believe that the unobservable DM is in play here. Space itself moves things along, sometimes Stars or planets collide, while others move away from each other. There is a certain amount of economics in this Motion/Momentum, where the planets/Stars are unable to congregate too closely due to each gravity well that inhibits major contact. But Space is the prime mover and determinant (but not sentient) of the Motion/Momentum of all Mass, according to the requirements of the natural spacing of Mass.
In effect, it is similar to the Fibonacci "rules of engagement" where spacing of Mass is equivalent to what you see in the spacing of sunflower seeds - but not quite the same, of course.

Feb 17, 2019
Gravitational lensing is only light that is deflected off of mass and is redirected toward another line of sight.


Maybe I can.

At some distance from our local reference frame, we're outside it's gravitational effect and the reference frame of our stellar system dominates; we've attained escape velocity from Earth. It's been proposed that outside 50,000 au from Sol, we're beyond its influence and subject to the galactic reference. So, in effect, we've attained a stellar system escape velocity. At some higher velocity, we attain galactic escape velocity.

The more distance we put between us and Earth, the more momentum we've obtained, and the escape velocity increases. I think that's a pretty standard interpretation. At each energy level, the sides of the bowl go up and more energy is required to escape.

But there's a point when we've reached a universal escape velocity, at which moving we begin moving away from everything at a speed that increases with distance.

Feb 17, 2019
Awhhhh, blotto! That is so sweet of you. And so near Valentine's Day, you must care so...
Crackpot idiot pseudoscience theories make me cry as well so what can I say?

says SpookyOtto

Would you care to add your own "pseudoscience" to the mix? Don't worry. We won't think any less of you.
:)

Feb 17, 2019
Sorry BackBurner,, but your "blueberries in a bowl" analogy doesn't explain why bodies of mass move/drift apart.


Yes, it tries to. The idea you may have glossed over is the rising rim of the bowl (curvature), and the idea that with sufficient distance from the bottom of the bowl, mass begins to fall off the other side. It's an analogy.

At intergalactic distances, mass begins to fall away down the other side of the slope. That's dark energy.

Feb 17, 2019
@BB, there is no slope, hills or dales in Space. It is smooth in every direction except where volumes of Mass and their gravity well happens to be. There are no structures, otherwise, to influence the Motion/Momentum of Mass to move along any direction whether up or down. The gravity is only influential when 2 or more bodies of Mass are close enough to move toward each other. No DM there. When they move away from each other, it's not due to DE - it is that Space itself requires that Mass is given enough leeway to keep its distance from other Mass - otherwise, it would be like a game of pool (billiards) where one ball is hit by a cue stick and scatters all the other balls in many directions, often colliding.
Sorry for that analogy, but there has to be a certain formality, even in astrophysics.
Moving right along, even clusters of galaxies keep their distance from each other. This avoids chaos and disorder. LOL It may seem metaphysical, but it is what it is.

Feb 17, 2019
It sounds like you're saying that subsequent to a particle of mass passing through the stronger field of a larger gravitating body, that it will suddenly take a turn in a different direction than the one it was deflected into by the larger gravitating body? Is this what you're saying?


It will appear to have taken a turn. That's how we describe the effect we've named "gravitational lensing" and observed to occur around distant galaxies.


BB, you're confusing the issues here. You start off talking about the effects of two gravitating masses on one another, then mixing "gravitational lensing" into that, two separate issues.



It was a tangental question and I may have not answered it well. The original question was "does gravity influence the acceleration of electromagnetic radiation". We have evidence it does and we call it "gravitational lensing".

If light appears to take a longer path in shorter time, it's been "accelerated".

Feb 17, 2019
LOL It may seem metaphysical, but it is what it is.


It does in fact seem metaphysical. I like to avoid metaphysics in this context myself.

I did try to explain it. Eventually, with sufficient distance, the absence of mass creates a negative gradient that appears repulsive.

Another way to look at the effect described is to examine atomic physics, where we have valence bands (escape velocities) and free electrons. It's a different analogy with different assumptions, but it also describes observation and it doesn't depend on "dark matter" or "dark energy".

Feb 17, 2019
In fact, the Dark Matter and Dark Energy fable is more metaphysical than what I have stated above. There is Law and Order in the Universe, BB. It is impossible to disassociate many of the Laws of Physics that we know of on this planet, with the Laws of the Universe. Mass/Energy doesn't need a spooky DM and DE to exist and function and neither do the Forces.
They are all up to snuff (of which we should be thankful).

'If light appears to take a longer path in shorter time, it's been "accelerated".
No. It has only been REDIRECTED into a different course at the same velocity. It only SEEMS to have accelerated due to it having been deflected by the Mass that deflected it. c remains at c

Feb 17, 2019
@BB, there is no slope, hills or dales in Space.


But there are hills, slopes and dales in spacetime. We know this and it's been demonstrated experimentally. Why do you hold this belief? How do you explain gravitational time dilation?

Feb 17, 2019
But there's all that evidence. And no other sound theory to account for it.

Lots more where that came from, too, and all of it says the same thing as the first did.

The closest anyone has come, other than dark matter, to an explanation of all of it is MOND, and GW 20170817 kinda killed that when it proved that the relative speed of light and speed of gravity are the same within the limits of error. A speed difference between light and gravitation is a pervasive feature of MOND theories, and that's now ruled out to high confidence levels. So now what?

Now if you want to say that dark energy is actually some field effect we haven't discovered yet in GRT, I might not fight too hard; these types of hypotheses seem to conflict less with the evidence. But still there is no consistent theory to explain it.

Feb 17, 2019
No. It has only been REDIRECTED into a different course at the same velocity. It only SEEMS to have accelerated due to it having been deflected by the Mass that deflected it. c remains at c


You forget your own question, which was something along the lines of "does gravity accelerate electromagnetic radiation?"

My answer was "yes. we call it gravity lensing" (should have been gravitational lensing).

We have empirical evidence that gravity bends light into a path that isn't straight. A curved path is longer than a strait path. Therefore gravity appears to accelerate light. It may not go faster, but it takes a longer path in the same amount of time, because after all, c remains c?

Feb 17, 2019
BB, if you take a plastic triangle and measure 2 sides of it, you would have to TURN A CORNER of the triangle (gravitational lensing), but that measurement of the 2 sides - it is the equivalent distance of the straight third side in a straight line from point to point or line of sight.

Feb 17, 2019
Something has to be there. Will it be a particle we can identify? We don't know yet. As has been repeatedly emphasized here, without acknowledgement from any of dark matter's detractors, "dark matter" is only a placeholder for whatever this additional gravitational effect is. Unless and until someone actually shows a reliable detection of a dark matter particle, this is all hypotheses- it's merely that such a particle is the most convincing hypothesis that we continue to call it dark matter.

But of course none of the nutjobs can get their heads around this. No one will be either surprised or dismayed if it turns out not to be a particle. But if you're betting, a particle is the way to bet given what we know now.

Feb 17, 2019
BackBurner I'm giving you all 5s anyway even though we essentially disagree. You've made a great argument for your understanding of the issue. You are correct on grav lensing, but as I said, it is equivalent to the triangle analogy.

Feb 17, 2019
The closest anyone has come, other than dark matter, to an explanation of all of it is MOND


MOND was certainly the first attempt I'd heard of, there are variations. The most recent was a non-linear description of spacetime distortion I read not two years ago and I'm damned if I can remember the name of it. It attracted my attention because it echos my own thoughts. The authors described a "bubble" around mass that causes gravitational effects to increase with distance, very similar to my own thoughts. Where they didn't go is towards the idea that sufficient distance between masses might result in a repulsive force between them, a "negative gradient" of gravity that might describe "dark energy"; the force that drives expanding spacetime.

Feb 17, 2019
The speed of light is a speed- and being dr/dt, it is inextricably linked to time. If gravity warps time, then the geodesic the light must follow is shortened by gravitational time dilation to be the shortest distance between points on either side of the gravity well.

You may wish to consider this fact, @BackBurner.

Feb 17, 2019
BackBurner I'm giving you all 5s anyway even though we essentially disagree. You've made a great argument for your understanding of the issue. You are correct on grav lensing, but as I said, it is equivalent to the triangle analogy.


Thanks. Sincerely. I appreciated the opportunity to try, though I may have not convinced anyone. It's a model I've been working on for many years. But, in the immortal words of Monty Python, "it's only a model".

Feb 17, 2019
@BackBurner, we crossposted.

Attempts to make this all a minor inaccuracy in GRT are pervasive in the literature. I can't quite tell which one you're referring to here, but these hypotheses are certainly not excluded from the literature as the nutjobs claim. Unless or until someone manages to detect a particle that accounts for dark matter, those hypotheses that do not violate known evidence of these effects we call "dark matter" as a field correction to GRT remain viable and no one who looks at this closely disagrees.

My own conjecture (it doesn't rise to the level of a hypothesis- call it an opinion if you like) is that dark matter is a particle, but dark energy is an adjustment to GRT that we have not yet discovered. I freely admit I could be wrong, but the preponderance of evidence militates toward this, I think.

Feb 17, 2019
it is that Space itself requires that Mass is given enough leeway to keep its distance from other Mass - otherwise, it would be like a game of pool (billiards) where one ball is hit by a cue stick and scatters all the other balls in many directions, often colliding.
Sorry for that analogy, but there has to be a certain formality, even in astrophysics.
Moving right along, even clusters of galaxies keep their distance from each other. This avoids chaos and disorder.


........the effects of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY, the distribution of energy. The randomness of the distribution of energy is what avoids chaos & thus a breakdown within the closed boundary of an energy system. The Universe is a big energy generator & the galaxies in motion is it's motor consuming all that energy giving motion to all we see about us via what we call KINETIC ENERGY.


Feb 17, 2019
@Benni, since you cannot do differential equations, you cannot understand entropy.

Hell, you can't even figure out fractions or for that matter

2 + 2 / 2 = ?

Feb 17, 2019
Here's the essential equation of entropy:

S = k ln(W)

It's a differential equation on which you are not competent to comment.

It's engraved on Boltzmann's gravestone.

Feb 17, 2019
Liar deniers always downvote facts.

This is their single and only strategy. And it never works; facts are facts. Evidence is evidence. Confounding facts with theory is their only strategy.

It's engraved on his gravestone.

You deny it at your peril. Everyone can see you.

Feb 17, 2019
it is that Space itself requires that Mass is given enough leeway to keep its distance from other Mass - otherwise, it would be like a game of pool (billiards) where one ball is hit by a cue stick and scatters all the other balls in many directions, often colliding.
Sorry for that analogy, but there has to be a...
Moving right along, even clusters of galaxies keep their distance from each other. This avoids chaos and disorder.
says I

........the effects of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY, the distribution of energy. The randomness of the distribution of energy is what avoids chaos & thus a breakdown within the closed boundary of an energy system. The Universe is a big energy generator & the galaxies in motion is it's motor consuming all that energy giving motion to all we see about us via what we call KINETIC ENERGY.

says Benni

Correct. Kinetic Energy is another term for Motion/Momentum. The Universe is a Mechanism that employs the Laws of Thermo.

Feb 17, 2019
I mean seriously, you're yammering about entropy and downvoting Boltzmann's gravestone?

Teh stoopit it burnz.

Feb 17, 2019
@Benni and BackBurner

There is no such animal as Time Dilation. There is NO WAY to dilate Time. Time does NOT occupy Space or Mass/Energy. It has no STRUCTURE. Time is merely a CONCEPT - a construct of the human mind for the purpose of measurement of duration of events AND to quantify the duration of a Distance between Point A and Point B, or Point A and Point C as in quantifying gravitational lensing (the deflection of light by Mass as I stated above.
Professor A. Einstein through Spacetime in there rather than a description of Space only. He should have known better. But he messed that up - big time.
Space may dilate, which is why it forms gravity wells around planets and Stars.

Feb 17, 2019
BackBurner I'm giving you all 5s anyway even though we essentially disagree. You've made a great argument for your understanding of the issue. You are correct on grav lensing, but as I said, it is equivalent to the triangle analogy.


Thanks. Sincerely. I appreciated the opportunity to try, though I may have not convinced anyone. It's a model I've been working on for many years. But, in the immortal words of Monty Python, "it's only a model".
says BackBurner

You're very welcome. You should consider all possibilities put forth, including mine and Benni's. I believe that you will come to the conclusion that a Phd doesn't mean that a scientist/researcher has considered all the possibilities, including the ones I gave you. Many scientists are so mesmerised by the works of past scientists/researchers that they can't get out to explore new possibilities. The books/journals talk of Dark Matter/Energy and they are stuck on that as tho they've found the holy grail

Feb 17, 2019


2 + 2 / 2 = ?


With or without parens?

With: 2 + (2/2) = 3
With different: (2 + 2) / 2 = 2

It's a diminuative test Schnoz. Below your aspirations I'd think?

Your pick.

Feb 17, 2019
@Benni and BackBurner

There is no such animal as Time Dilation.


Well, then there's the whole GPS system we all depend on, which experimentally validates time dilation, or did I miss something?

It isn't an easy idea to wrap your head around, I'll give you that much? But I'm an empiricists and I give experimental results quite a bit of credence.

Feb 17, 2019
Try visualizing two galaxies with enough distance (vacuum) between them. Now, visualize a spacetime curvature who's Y axis dimension (using the 2D "rubber sheet analogy) increases with the distance between the masses. Within a dense field, the increased curvature is negligible but likely observable; at some distance even local masses will cease attracting. At distances beyond that, they begin repelling. At large distances they measurably begin accelerating away from each other. Hence an expanding universe accelerating in all dimensions.

Come on guys, this isn't rocket science :)
says BackBurner

I wanted to mention that all Mass is going ONE WAY. It matters not whether the one galaxy is ahead of - or the galaxy is behind the one that is out in front of it. *>* or *<*
The swiftness of the one that's out in front will determine whether or not the two will collide eventually. MilkyWay in front with Andromeda lagging behind will eventually merge. Gravity is pulling Andromeda

Feb 17, 2019
toward the Milky Way. The greater the volume of Mass, the stronger is the gravitational pull towards it from behind. If it didn't go in one direction only - then all of the galaxies would be colliding or have "near misses" - thus utter Chaos.

Feb 18, 2019

I wanted to mention that all Mass is going ONE WAY.


That is the popular view. I disagree, as does observation.

Feb 18, 2019
Gravity is pulling Andromeda


Same blueberry bowl. No contest.

Feb 18, 2019
toward the Milky Way. The greater the volume of Mass, the stronger is the gravitational pull towards it from behind. If it didn't go in one direction only - then all of the galaxies would be colliding or have "near misses" - thus utter Chaos.


But of course they aren't. Some near galaxies do collide; same blueberry bowl.

Other's run from each other at accelerating speeds apparently. We need to describe both observed phenomena with our models. I've tried to do that.

Feb 18, 2019

I wanted to mention that all Mass is going ONE WAY.


That is the popular view. I disagree, as does observation.


The Big Bang itself is the main indicator that all are going one way - outward from the centre of wherever the Big Bang initially occurred. Even if all are going in all directions from that point like the spokes in a wheel - it would still mean that galaxies are following the ones ahead of them, in a row from whichever "spoke" they are on.
The MilkyWay is lagging behind the galaxy that is in front, which is why Andromeda is catching up.

Feb 18, 2019

I wanted to mention that all Mass is going ONE WAY.


That is the popular view. I disagree, as does observation.


The Big Bang itself is the main indicator that all are going one way - outward from the centre of wherever the Big Bang initially occurred. Even if all are going in all directions from that point like the spokes in a wheel - it would still mean that galaxies are following the ones ahead of them, in a row from whichever "spoke" they are on.


But that isn't the apparent case based on observation; spacetime is expanding in all directions. There is no center?

This gives lie to the big bang theory. I don't mean that as an epithet; it only means the theory can't be correct in an isomorphic universe.

Feb 18, 2019
Personally, I favour the "wagon wheel" model.

Feb 18, 2019
I believe that I've already mentioned that the time that was included into "Spacetime" is incorrect. Please review that part above.
So you seem to be saying that everything began within a static Universe. That would mean that there is no beginning and no end; that everything existed already and that it is all chaotic like your blueberries in a bowl.
The wheel spoke at least would indicate that there is a beginning - somewhere.

Feb 18, 2019
You're very welcome. You should consider all possibilities put forth, including mine and Benni's. I believe that you will come to the conclusion that a Phd doesn't mean that a scientist/researcher has considered all the possibilities


I will, you can count on that. This is one of the more important questions in my life.

I am openly and actively pursuing all the possibilities put forth and I evaluate them equally to the best of my ability.

I honestly do appreciate your participation in this process very much. You may be an academic and have the luxury of well informed and educated peers; I can't say we share that luxury.

I appreciate your participation. Sincerely.

Feb 18, 2019
toward the Milky Way. The greater the volume of Mass, the stronger is the gravitational pull towards it from behind. If it didn't go in one direction only - then all of the galaxies would be colliding or have "near misses" - thus utter Chaos.


But of course they aren't. Some near galaxies do collide; same blueberry bowl.

Other's run from each other at accelerating speeds apparently. We need to describe both observed phenomena with our models. I've tried to do that.


I think that you are describing the oft vaunted "red shift" which I was describing in the way of a galaxy following in the path of another (red shift) and another galaxy following from behind (blue shift). If you're in a car following the car ahead of you, you would see that car in the red shift. But you turn around in your seat and see that another car is following YOU...blue shift.

Feb 18, 2019
Surveillance_Egg_Unit writes:

"So you seem to be saying that everything began within a static Universe. That would mean that there is no beginning and no end; that everything existed already and that it is all chaotic like your blueberries in a bowl."

In essence, yes.

That's my fundamental understanding. No beginning, no end. From a philosophical perspective (maybe you'd call it metaphysical) I agree with that model. I find it very difficult to accept a "beginning" or "end" of time. However I'm an empiricist, so I do accept contravening evidence.

Feb 18, 2019
With or without parens?


Without. Punch it in your calculator and see what you get.

Feb 18, 2019
BackBurner
I am but a mere scholar and interested observer of scientific ideology - whether logical and reasonable or utter nonsense. It's still all very interesting that humans have come this far.

Feb 18, 2019
Surveillance_Egg_Unit writes:

"So you seem to be saying that everything began within a static Universe. That would mean that there is no beginning and no end; that everything existed already and that it is all chaotic like your blueberries in a bowl."

In essence, yes.

That's my fundamental understanding. No beginning, no end. From a philosophical perspective (maybe you'd call it metaphysical) I agree with that model. I find it very difficult to accept a "beginning" or "end" of time. However I'm an empiricist, so I do accept contravening evidence.
says BackBurner

There is no "end of time". Please review what I've said about the Time element that was illogically included in "Spacetime" by Mr. Einstein - who obviously appears to have thought that Time was a dimension - which it most certainly isn't.

There is a beginning and an end to everything. If not, then Matter/Energy will never cease to exist. But that would also mean that the Universe would stagnate - sour

Feb 18, 2019
But you turn around in your seat and see that another car is following YOU...blue shift.


In the example we're discussing, "close" mass, the model you describe can be (and has been) investigated and articulated. It's only been recently we've had the tools to observe the larger universe, then discovered the inconsistencies of the larger universe.

I'm only working on the observed results and attempting to reconcile those observations with general relativity.

Feb 18, 2019
@BB
Time has ALWAYS existed, and will forever exist. Even before "the Beginning" it had already existed. There is no stopping Time. Even in the alleged Black Hole, Time continues on. What you DO see are EVENTS slowing down or stopping. Which means that you could start running a marathon - and while running, you start slowing down, slower and slower, until you come to a stop with both legs airborne. That's an event. Time doesn't slow down.

Feb 18, 2019
There is no "end of time".


Aha! So you're a quantum mechanic? :)

I have to agree; world without end. I do tend to lean towards the block universe. That would be my official and current opinion. I freely admit it.

Feb 18, 2019
"I'm only working on the observed results and attempting to reconcile those observations with general relativity"
Not all observations are popular with the "in" crowd, especially if they are huge fans of GR. You can read that melee' in many physorg phorums where some will KILL to show they are fans of GR. Einstein created some very obsessive fans. But do take your time and don't get fooled by propaganda from the science community. They're all jockeying for position to be the best.

Feb 18, 2019
You misunderstand my stance on Time. It had no beginning and no matter how the Universe started up, Time was already running. Even BEFORE the "Big Bang", Time was running. Since it is not a dimension, it isn't constrained as are the first, second and third dimensions.
We only use the concept of Time to measure and because we needed a way to explain how long it takes for the Sun to rise again. It's that simple. When you come to realise that Time is only a TOOL, then you will accept that it has nothing to do with Space as in spacetime

Feb 18, 2019
@BackBurner
We've had a very interesting discussion and I appreciate your candor and wit. I wish you well in your endeavours and hope that you remain open to new logic - even if unpopular.
I assume that you're in Oz, so I hope that there's a break in the hot weather and things cool down.

Feb 18, 2019
@BackBurner
We've had a very interesting discussion and I appreciate your candor and wit. I wish you well in your endeavours and hope that you remain open to new logic - even if unpopular.
I assume that you're in Oz, so I hope that there's a break in the hot weather and things cool down.


It's high summer. Cooling down should happen in a few months. :)

Feb 18, 2019
With or without parens?


Without. Punch it in your calculator and see what you get.


I would, but I don't own a calculator, I remain one of those old school folks who does simple arithmetic in my head?

Come on. This is beneath both of us.

Feb 18, 2019
You have a computer. I don't know of an OS that doesn't include a calculator.

Feb 18, 2019
@Benni, since you cannot do differential equations, you cannot understand entropy.

Hell, you can't even figure out fractions or for that matter

2 + 2 / 2 = ?

Your IQ

Feb 18, 2019
BB, you're confusing the issues here. You start off talking about the effects of two gravitating masses on one another, then mixing "gravitational lensing" into that, two separate issues.

It was a tangental question ...... The original question was "does gravity influence the acceleration of electromagnetic radiation". We have evidence it does and we call it "gravitational lensing".
EM Waves DO NOT "accelerate" under any conditions known to the immutable laws of physics.

Gravitational lensing has absolutely ZERO effect on the velocity of electro-magnetic waves. It has a small effect on shifting the wavelength of an EM Wave but NEVER it's velocity.

The issue about velocity effects of GRAVITY on EM Waves comes from disproven 19th Century black hole math that Einstein eviscerated in his publication of Special Relativity in 1905. He irrevocably proved that EM Waves CANNOT be subjected to the ESCAPE VELOCITY equations derived from Kinetic Energy, 1/2mv².


Feb 18, 2019
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Idiot. Why are you still here? You know shit about physics. As proven.

Feb 18, 2019
There is no "end of time". Please review what I've said about the Time element that was illogically included in "Spacetime" by Mr. Einstein - who obviously appears to have thought that Time was a dimension - which it most certainly isn't.


Einstein was badgered into using "spacetime continuum" by a few others who were also working on coming up with the field equations that ultimately became known as General Relativity.

Einstein decided to use the expression not because it meant a great deal to him personally, but that using it would allow the Maxwell's of his time to be more willing to support the publication of General Relativity. Of course we can look back on it 100 years later & see how empty of meaning "spacetime continuum" really is when not immediately clarified within context of whatever issue is under discussion.

Feb 18, 2019
Time has ALWAYS existed,
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

REGARDLESS of whether there was a beginning of time, time by definition has "ALWAYS existed".
That is because (even) if there was a beginning of time then there was no 'before' that beginning of time (else, as logically implied by the word 'before', there was a point in time 'before' that beginning therefore the said "beginning of time" isn't the beginning of time) which means if there was a beginning of time then all points of time "existed" in "ALWAYS" because the word "ALWAYS" means AT ALL POINTS in time and thus "ALWAYS" doesn't including a point in time where time doesn't exist (which would be a contradiction ANYWAY). Therefore time by definition has "ALWAYS" "existed" i.e. "ALWAYS existed".
But I doubt any of that was what you really meant to say.

Feb 18, 2019
Time has ALWAYS existed,
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

REGARDLESS of whether there was a beginning of time, time by definition has "ALWAYS existed".
That is because (even) if there was a beginning of time then there was no 'before' that beginning of time (else, as logically implied by the word 'before', there was a point in time 'before' that beginning therefore the said "beginning of time" isn't the beginning of time) which means if there was a beginning of time then all points of time "existed" in "ALWAYS" because the word "ALWAYS" means AT ALL POINTS in time and thus "ALWAYS" doesn't including a point in time where time doesn't exist (which would be a contradiction ANYWAY). Therefore time by definition has "ALWAYS" "existed" i.e. "ALWAYS existed".
But I doubt any of that was what you really meant to say.
......so what then is the mechanism of this ETERNAL CLOCK?

If there's an eternal clock out there somewhere, then somebody built it,,,,,,who?

Feb 18, 2019
. If you're in a car following the car ahead of you, you would see that car in the red shift. But you turn around in your seat and see that another car is following YOU...blue shift.

Since you are three are travelling in the same direction and at an equivalent, you would see NO shift (Unless your driving a 5 speed manual)

Feb 18, 2019
so what then is the mechanism of this ETERNAL CLOCK?
Benni

Exactly what do you mean by "ETERNAL CLOCK" and how do you know there exists one?

Feb 18, 2019
SEU, latest in the long line of pirouette/russkiye/pussycateyes/obamasocks iterations of the same perennial crackpot, has this to say in response to my response to cantdrive85
says SpookyOtto

Would you care to add your own "pseudoscience" to the mix? Don't worry. We won't think any less of you.
:)
-Cantdrive85 is the only other poster to refer to me as blotto. The aforementioned suckpuppet menagerie used to call me that all the time.

I've long suspected that that poster (commonly referred to as pussytard for short) was a 'regular' poster who donned one of these idiot socks every once in awhile in order to bait the legitimate posters here as a way of feeding his egomaniac proclivities; and because of that last response by SEU, I now suspect cantdrive85 the EU czar, is none other than one and the same crackpot.

Cantdrive85 = SEU

Feb 18, 2019
Blueberries in a bowl or our Universe

A bran new concept
for our Universe
how fitting a name for our Universe
blueberries in a bowl
well why not
we explain gravity
in our expanding Universe
as berries expanding on a rubber sheet
so if individuals come to think of our Universe as blueberries in a bowl
blame the individuals who explain gravitational expansion as berries on a rubber sheet
as to time
is simply
the moon makes 12orbitals of earth as earth makes 1 orbital of the sun
is the basis of the mathematics of time
because
as a physical entity time does not exist, except in mathematics
Albert knew this even as devised time dilation
as he struggled with Pythagoras's theorem
as light bends its path it travels a longer path
rather than accept light takes longer to travel this longer path
Albert theorised, postulated, thought a bit more then by George he got it in one
Time Dilation - Length Contraction or Pythagoras's Theorem

Feb 18, 2019
so what then is the mechanism of this ETERNAL CLOCK?
Benni

Exactly what do you mean by "ETERNAL CLOCK" and how do you know there exists one?


You're the one who insists on it's existence,
Therefore time by definition has "ALWAYS" "existed" i.e. "ALWAYS existed".
"Always existed", TIME with no beginning & no end is what you're saying, sounds rather contrarian to the bigo bango, so all I'm asking you is where I look to find it to find the tick tock of all that kinetic energy your cosmic clock is ticking off.

Feb 18, 2019
^^^^^^^^^And the clueless idiot is still babbling on about stuff it doesn't understand!

Feb 18, 2019
Blueberries in a bowl or our Universe

A bran new concept
for our Universe
how fitting a name for our Universe
blueberries in a bowl
well why not
we explain gravity
in our expanding Universe
as berries expanding on a rubber sheet
so if individuals come to think of our Universe as blueberries in a bowl
blame the individuals who explain gravitational expansion as berries on a rubber sheet
as to time
is simply
the moon makes 12orbitals of earth as earth makes 1 orbital of the sun
is the basis of the mathematics of time
because
as a physical entity time does not exist, except in mathematics
Albert knew this even as devised time dilation
as he struggled with Pythagoras's theorem
as light bends its path it travels a longer path
rather than accept light takes longer to travel this longer path
Albert theorised, thought a bit more then by George he got it in one
Time Dilation - Length Contraction or Pythagoras's Theorem


A real kinetic energy clock in action.

Feb 18, 2019
so what then is the mechanism of this ETERNAL CLOCK?
Benni

Exactly what do you mean by "ETERNAL CLOCK" and how do you know there exists one?


You're the one who insists on it's existence,
Since it wasn't me but only that said "ETERNAL CLOCK", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, and since I have NO IDEA what you are talking about, that is clearly false i.e. I very clearly did NOT insist that an "ETERNAL CLOCK" exists, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
"Always existed", TIME with no beginning & no end is what you're saying,
Nope. I clearly said no such thing. Apparently you cannot read.

Feb 18, 2019
You can take this to Galactic proportions

Benni, A real kinetic energy clock in action
when the Earth rotates 91,250,000,000 days
the Moon makes 3,000,000,000 orbital's of Earth
as Earth makes 250,000,000 orbital of the Sun
as the Sun makes 1 orbital of the galaxy

Feb 18, 2019
-Cantdrive85 is the only other poster to refer to me as blotto.

I go there for nostalgic reasons only, a reminder of days gone by...
Cantdrive85 = SEU

Never socked, never will. Hell, it's the only damn thing that'll get you banned here. It's why we don't hear from a few of my favs, Zephyr and Hannes.

Feb 18, 2019
I am not convinced. Please answer a few pertinent questions:
1) have you ever had sex up against the microwave?
2) are you allergic to sweet sorghum or no?
3) have you ever had your comments here at physorg altered by sinister forces?
4) have you ever called the NRC to recommend cooling meltdowns with dry ice?
5) have you ever worked for NASA as an engineer?
6) were you in the control room all night when Curiosity landed?
7) were you ever a black psychiatrist?
8) do you believe that the only way to achieve zero growth is not to make any babies AT ALL for 100 years? (My fav)
9) do you believe the FACT that the solar system is just big enough to accommodate all the planets, is PROOF of the existence of god?

-Take your time but understand that I wont believe a word of your testimony.

Feb 18, 2019
so what then is the mechanism of this ETERNAL CLOCK?
Benni

Exactly what do you mean by "ETERNAL CLOCK" and how do you know there exists one?


You're the one who insists on it's existence, Since it wasn't me but only that said "ETERNAL CLOCK", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, and since I have NO IDEA what you are talking about, that is clearly false i.e. I very clearly did NOT insist that an "ETERNAL CLOCK" exists, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
"Always existed", TIME with no beginning & no end is what you're saying,
Nope. I clearly said no such thing. Apparently you cannot read.
.....I guess you can't even discern your own quotes:

So explain how TIME is measured if not by the finite mechanism of kinetic energy? You're the one who insisted:
Therefore time by definition has "ALWAYS" "existed" i.e. "ALWAYS existed".
So if TIME has always existed, how was it measured?

Feb 18, 2019
You can take this to Galactic proportions

Benni, A real kinetic energy clock in action
when the Earth rotates 91,250,000,000 days
the Moon makes 3,000,000,000 orbital's of Earth
as Earth makes 250,000,000 orbital of the Sun
as the Sun makes 1 orbital of the galaxy


Yep, another good example of the expenditure of kinetic energy to measure humy's concept of "TIME" that he claims has "ALWAYS existed" even as he now claims he never made such a statement.

I'm still awaiting humy's evidence to his claim for the pre-existence of kinetic energy that is needed for measuring time before there was the bigo bango, but he gets confused.

Feb 18, 2019
Kinetic Energy is mass in theory - E = MC²
beeds> Maybe the missing mass is somehow related to the kinetic energy of the stuff we can see?

The Milkyway is moving at 600kms, its stars are spinning, its stars are orbiting
the rotational and linear kinetic energy of all the mass in motion
totals
an enormous sum
as
a high percentage of this mass
is
moving at velocity
at velocity most profound
at over 90% the velocity of light
such that
this equation of Albert's, E = MC² is 4 or more time the energy E that exist in the mass
the mass that has to provide the energy to accelerate the mass to over 90% the speed of light
in point of fact
if the existing mass multiplied by its velocity
The kinetic energy, more than accounts for the missing mass, in spade full's

Feb 18, 2019
Time has ALWAYS existed,
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

REGARDLESS of whether there was a beginning of time, time by definition has "ALWAYS existed".
That is because (even) if there was a beginning of time then there was no 'before' that beginning of time (else, as logically implied by the word 'before', there was a point in time 'before' that beginning therefore the said "beginning of time" isn't the beginning of time) which means if there was a beginning of time then all points of time "existed" in "ALWAYS" because the word "ALWAYS" means AT ALL POINTS in time and thus "ALWAYS" doesn't including a point in time where time doesn't exist (which would be a contradiction ANYWAY). Therefore time by definition has "ALWAYS" "existed" i.e. "ALWAYS existed".
But I doubt any of that was what you really meant to say.
says humy

As Time is not a "dimension". it is unobservable in and of itself.

-contd-

Feb 18, 2019
-contd-
Time is inanimate, therefore Time cannot be captured by an alleged Black Hole and drawn toward it or be a part of it. It is EVENTS that slow down within the alleged BH, where the spin is created by natural forces, similar to water spinning inside a sink drain pipe before entering the pipe itself.
Our concept of Time is only related to the fact that we are living and are aware of THE PASSAGE OF EVENTS, and it is that passage that we call Time.
There was NO BEGINNING OF TIME - and it even transcends the Creator God's existence - whether before or during. There is no "after" in that context because the Creator is immortal.
But Time itself - not as we have conceptualised had no beginning and will never end. Even long after the Universe has ended in whichever way, Time will still be inviolate as there is nothing that can make it cease to exist. Existence is not the right term - for Time to exist, it would to be quantifiable - and it isn't -except by our use as a concept

Feb 18, 2019
Kinetic Energy is mass in theory - E = MC²
beeds> Maybe the missing mass is somehow related to the kinetic energy of the stuff we can see?

The Milkyway is . . .
this equation of Albert's, E = MC² is 4 or more time the energy E that exist in the mass
the mass that has to provide the energy to accelerate the mass to over 90% the speed of light
in point of fact
if the existing mass multiplied by its velocity
The kinetic energy, more than accounts for the missing mass, in spade full's
says granville

Brilliant estimation. Mass/Energy are convertible and interchangeable from one to the other and back again - over and over ad infinitum.
It is ENERGY and its Motion/Momentum that is where the missing Mass is hidden. Dark Matter is toast.
Thank you, granville and beeds

Feb 18, 2019
...
So if TIME has always existed, how was it measured?

The same way space was measured - it wasn't. It just - was...

Feb 18, 2019
SEU, latest in the long line of pirouette/russkiye/pussycateyes/obamasocks iterations of the same perennial crackpot, has this to say in response to my response to cantdrive85
says SpookyOtto

Would you care to add your own "pseudoscience" to the mix? Don't worry. We won't think any less
:)
-Cantdrive85 is the only other poster to refer to me as blotto. The aforementioned suckpuppet menagerie used to call me that all the time.

I've long suspected that that poster (commonly referred to as pussytard for short) was a 'regular' poster who donned one of these idiot socks every once in awhile in order to bait the legitimate posters here as a way of feeding his egomaniac proclivities; and because of that last response by SEU, I now suspect cantdrive85 the EU czar, is none other than one and the same crackpot.

Cantdrive85 = SEU
says SpookyOtto

I have ALWAYS called you SpookyOtto and nothing BUT SpookyOtto.
Go take your D-K meds before you completely lose your mind

Feb 18, 2019
Go take your D-K meds before you completely lose your mind
.....it's too late.

Feb 18, 2019
Brilliant estimation. Mass/Energy are convertible and interchangeable from one to the other and back again - over and over ad infinitum.


It's for this reason that the Universe displays remarkable homogeneity. No matter what direction we aim our telescopes, the most distant views are so much alike one another that we can probably conclude from such homogeneity that the Universe could very well be trillions of years old.

When they finally get that James Webb Infrared telescope into orbit & running, I believe there will be a lot of present day theories about the Universe be shattered so badly that all the textbooks on Astronomy will be rewritten.

Feb 18, 2019
What are "D-K meds?" Snicker.

Feb 18, 2019
. If you're in a car following the car ahead of you, you would see that car in the red shift. But you turn around in your seat and see that another car is following YOU...blue shift.

Since you are three are travelling in the same direction and at an equivalent, you would see NO shift (Unless your driving a 5 speed manual)
says Whyde

LOL Precisely. 3 cars are headed in the same direction with 1 on each end, and 1 in the middle. But the 1 in the middle is MilkyWay that is following the gal. in front of him who is driving at a steady velocity. BUT, MilkyWay slows down a fair bit to give the gal in front some leeway (in case another gal. decides to cut in front of MilkyWay suddenly). Then, as he slows down a mite, the gal. behind him is moving forward at the normal velocity. Eventually, MilkyWay is slowing a bit TOO much and Andromeda (the name of the gal. behind him) will soon go crashing into MilkyWay's car where they will merge and live happily ever after.

Feb 18, 2019
Worth noting at this point that the treatment of time as a dimension is special relativity theory, not general relativity theory, and time dilation is one of those inconvenient laboratory-proven facts that shows it's correct.

Oops.

Feb 18, 2019
Worth noting at this point that the treatment of time as a dimension is special relativity theory, not general relativity theory, and time dilation is one of those inconvenient laboratory-proven facts that shows it's correct.

Oops.


Worth noting that they are still wrong.

Feb 18, 2019
Eventually, MilkyWay is slowing a bit TOO much and Andromeda (the name of the gal. behind him) will soon go crashing into MilkyWay's car where they will merge and live happily ever after.


To me, the most logical description in the motions of galaxies is that the Universe is a BARYCENTER, that there is an actual CENTER but there's nothing in it. Barycenter motion is the most common structure we see in satellite clusters that orbit the Milky Way, and is in fact the manner the Milky Way moves in it's motion within our local Virgo group where no single galaxy actually occupies a center.

Feb 18, 2019
Worth noting at this point that the treatment of time as a dimension is special relativity theory, not general relativity theory, and time dilation is one of those inconvenient laboratory-proven facts that shows it's correct.

Oops.


Worth noting that they are still wrong.
It's experimental data. From 1938. It's called the "Ives-Stillwell experiment." The experiment has been repeated, many times and in several different ways. https://en.wikipe...periment

Like most crank nutjobs, yuo're denying data. It's yuo who's wrong. The only question is whether yuo're stupid or lying.

Feb 18, 2019
Oh, and just for the record, the Dunning-Kruger effect (sometimes called D-K syndrome) is the fairly obvious observation that the stupider people are the less likely they are to realize they're stupid. Obviously there are no medications for this. It's not a psychiatric condition; just a natural and logical consequence of stupidity.

Kinda like not noticing you're denying data.

Dumbshit apparently has been told it's exhibiting clear signs of D-K and thought it was some sort of disease. The disease is stupidity. The only cure is to admit you were wrong and find out the truth. And as the old joke goes,

Q. How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb?
A. Only one, but the light bulb has to really want to change.

Feb 18, 2019
Space can Dilate - Time cannot. IF Time was able to Dilate, then it would have to be animate and observable. Fool. Repeated many times and in several different ways means they were wrong that many times and ways.
Show what makes Time dilate and what it looks like, idiot twat nutjob

Feb 18, 2019
Yet the experimental results show not only can time dilate, but it does.

Still denying data, I see. You are a stupid. It's observable. I have no idea what "animate" means; dimensions can't think, as you appear from your statements to believe.

Time and space are interchangeable, just as the space dimensions are interchangeable.

Hold a pencil in front of your eyes perpendicular to your line of sight. Now rotate the pencil in the plane if your line of sight, and the direction the pencil is pointing. It appears shorter. Now, if you use depth perception, you will note that one space dimension has interchanged with another. Do you deny this?

OK, now make something go fast. Since velocity is a function of time, time interchanges with space. And that is exactly and only what time dilation is.

Shown. Next?

Feb 18, 2019
I could go into a lot more detail, some of which is covered in the relativity concept of "rapidity," but I have done so many times before and most D-K sufferers like you don't get it anyway because you're too stupid. If someone else is interested they can google up "rapidity relativity" and find out a lot more- and if that still doesn't do it I'll step up to the plate and swing at it again, but not for this foul-mouthed idiot.

Lessons:

1. Don't lie about me. Especially trash mouth lies. I'll humiliate you.
2. If you wanna stop being stupid you gotta learn.
3. Don't be an asshole.

Feb 18, 2019
4. If you wanna argue about relativity, learn it first.

Feb 18, 2019
Here, I will teach you something, if you're smart enough to learn:

Show what makes Time dilate and what it looks like, idiot twat nutjob
It's already shown what makes time dilate. What does it look like? Well, that depends on what frame of reference you're looking at it from.

There you go. The essential lesson of relativity. All frames are equivalent, but not all frames are equal.

Feb 18, 2019
Hahahahaha, idiot thinks you don't have to know what some concept actually means before you argue about it.

Classic D-K effect. What we have here is a dog arguing about astrophysics. You might as well let it scrabble on the keyboard and then post that. The billion chimpanzees experiment trying to reproduce Shakespeare. One post at a time. We'll be here for a trillion years. And you'll still be stupid.

Feb 18, 2019
1. Don't lie about me. Especially trash mouth lies. I'll humiliate you.
2. If you wanna stop being stupid you gotta learn.
3. Don't be an asshole.


2 + 2 / 2 = schneibo's IQ

Feb 18, 2019
@Benni's shit is pitifully weak. You aren't even a stupid; you're a Down's Syndrome sufferer. I pity you. Not only don't you know but you never can. You should stop posting on the Internets about relativity and concentrate on things you can learn, like the best way to swirl the mop when you're mopping toilets.

You'll never understand why that's the best way; you should just accept it as procedural knowledge, how to complete a task. Maybe that way the people who work there wouldn't complain so much about how dirty you leave everything.

Feb 18, 2019
Teh stoopit, it burnz.

Feb 18, 2019
@SEU

In order for the Laws of Physics to be the same in every frame of reference time must dilate. Otherwise the Laws of Physics would vary.
Maxwell's Equations are the same regardless of frame of reference. This is proof of that and what led Einstein to develop his theories.

Feb 18, 2019
And 2 + 2/2 = 3. Always and forever.

Feb 18, 2019
@jimmy, excellent. Yes, this is so. This is indeed what Einstein saw. The fact that Maxwell's equations must obtain in every frame of reference is exactly what Einstein saw; in order for that to be true, it is necessary not only to define laws to convert from one frame to another, but show that all of them can always be converted. (We call these conversions "transforms" or to be precise, "coordinate transformations.") The math Einstein did showed these transforms, And of course, these "frames of reference" must be defined.

Feb 18, 2019
Now, once these idiots

a) admit time dilation
and
b) admit gravitational time dilation

There is a conversation possible. Until then they are arguing unicorns.

I of course have references to papers for the third as well as the first, already produced.

I am lying in wait. With the math.

Feb 18, 2019
Let's see. . .
Isotropy of the speed of light = light waves

Relativistic Deppler effect = sound waves

annnnnddd

Feb 18, 2019
You've left out so many elements of your reasoning path it doesn't make any sense.

Neither of your observations seem to have any relevance. Both appear to be non-sequiturs. I might as well say unicorns = jebus. Or argon = infinity. Or music = evil.

Stupid is as stupid does.

How about (stupid + tribe) = (danger to society)

How does that work for you?

Feb 18, 2019
@SEU

What does 2/3 + 1/3 = ?

Feb 18, 2019
Slow moving clocks
Meanwhile, the measurement of time dilation at everyday speeds has been accomplished as well. Chou et al. (2010) created two clocks each holding a single 27Al+ ion in a Paul trap. In one clock, the Al+ ion was accompanied by a 9Be+ ion as a "logic" ion, while in the other, it was accompanied by a 25Mg+ ion. The two clocks were situated in separate laboratories and connected with a 75 m long, phase-stabilized optical fiber for exchange of clock signals. These optical atomic clocks emitted frequencies in the petahertz (1 PHz = 1015 Hz) range and had frequency uncertainties in the 10−17 range. With these clocks, it was possible to measure a frequency shift due to time dilation of ∼10−16 at speeds below 36 km/h (< 10 m/s, the speed of a fast runner) by comparing the rates of moving and resting aluminum ions. It was also possible to detect gravitational time dilation from a difference in elevation between the two clocks of 33 cm.[24]

-contd-

Feb 18, 2019
Keep going SEU, i'm waiting for your point.

Feb 18, 2019
We had already discussed this wrt the 2 Caesium clocks - 1 on an airplane and 1 on the ground, where it was found that it was Gravity itself that was responsible for the clocks differentiating in the mechanical works of each clock DUE TO GRAVITY... not Time Dilation

Benni - do you remember that discussion in one of the physorg phorums, I think it was last year.
I think it had to do with Pauli exclusion IIRC, and that Gravity affect the 2 clocks as to velocity, height and direction of the plane in the air in which it flew. I also added that the time zones were affecting GPS.
But there was no Time dilation whatsoever supposed to protect Einstein's GR/SR

Feb 18, 2019
Oh, and Benni - don't forget THIS little gem....

Ignore userQuoteReport
Da Schneib

1 /5 (2)
20 hours ago
What you do with these is go around behind their back and lie about them every chance you get.

https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Feb 18, 2019
@SEU

How do you know if you are in the earths gravitational field on the surface feeling a force of mg, g being 9.8 m/s^2, or in an craft accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2? You both feel a force of mg.

Feb 18, 2019
If you're just going to lie about Chou 2010, i don't see any reason to respond other than to show the lies. What they (Chou et al.2010) showed was that we can measure both SRT (velocity) effects and GRT (gravity effects) on time dilation using a pair of atomic clocks and a 70 meter optical fiber. We're now that good. It's getting late in the game to show any pride or shame. Best to just admit it instead of trying to lie some more. I will note that I have given this advice to only two others on this site.

Feb 18, 2019
@SEU

Please go on and explain how gravity slows a clock down. This is very interesting.
What about a digital clock. How does this happen?

Feb 18, 2019
@SEU

How do you know if you are in the earths gravitational field on the surface feeling a force of mg, g being 9.8 m/s^2, or in an craft accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2? You both feel a force of mg.


Nope. The gravitational pull on the surface of the Earth at sea level is different from the one at height, whether on an aircraft or up on a mountain. There further you get from Mass, the less the grav pull. The velocity of the aircraft is a factor also plus direction. Going East at dawn you are affected by the Earth's rotation in that heading, the opposite going West

Feb 18, 2019
@SEU

Please go on and explain how gravity slows a clock down. This is very interesting.
What about a digital clock. How does this happen?


Of course, jimmybobs. nuclear clocks are always affected by gravity. Normal clocks are mechanical only and depend on how fast the windup runs down.

Feb 18, 2019
@SEU
so how does gravity affect a clock?

Feb 18, 2019
@SEU
And how are nuclear clocks always affected by gravity?

Feb 18, 2019
A Caesium clock, you mean, aye jimmybobs? I told you already that nuclear clocks are affected by gravity, depending on the height of said clock, direction, and velocity. On a plane at 33000, the clock will run slower than the one at the surface. Higher than that and it runs even slower.

Feb 18, 2019
Not to mention lying about relativity.

x' = x - vt / τ
y' = y
z' = z
t' = ((t - vx) / c² ) / τ
Where, x, y, z, and t are the values in the frame to be transformed from
x', y', z', and t' are the values in the frame to be transformed to
v is velocity in the from frame
c is the speed of light
τ is √(1-(v² /c²))
You get to transform v into v'. Note v' is not used in any of the equations.

Feb 18, 2019
Why SEU?
Why is a "nuclear clock" affected by gravity? You can tell me all you want. But I wan't you to explain it to me. Not just "tell" me.

What is a "direction of a clock"?

Feb 18, 2019
You seem to forget, jimmybobs, that Gravity depends on Mass to activate grav pull. The closer to the surface of Mass, the stronger the pull of gravity. Got it?

Feb 18, 2019
A Caesium clock, you mean, aye jimmybobs? I told you already that nuclear clocks are affected by gravity, depending on the height of said clock, direction, and velocity. On a plane at 33000, the clock will run slower than the one at the surface. Higher than that and it runs even slower.
Trying to imitate someone who knows how relativity works is even stupider than lying about how relativity works.

You told us there's no time dilation. Then you say in this post atomic clocks measure time dilation.

Make up the thing you think is your mind.

Feb 18, 2019
What SEU?
Mass can "activate grav pull"?

So Nuclear clocks are affected by gravity but normal, mechanical, clocks are not SEU?

This is interesting stuff! Keep going!

Feb 18, 2019
Really, jimmybobs? You really don't know?
If the cesium clock is on an airplane that is in the air at height, if it going West, it has to follow the curvature of the Earth. Sun rises in the East so that your pilot with the clock is heading West while gaining time - 3 hours if you're on the East coast of the US. Got it? Going East you're losing 3 hours. Still nothing to do with Time dilating

Feb 18, 2019
D-K sufferer @Russian_Troll_Unit doesn't even understand what the Hafele-Keating experiment showed. It's yammering about timezones.

Prolly thinks "atomic clocks" have like hour hands and stuff.

Feb 18, 2019
Stop your silly baiting, jimmybobs. I tire of you. Go ask you uncle De Scheide. Bye bye

You stupid humans are too amazing as how easy it is to make fools of you. Time dilation ROFLOL

Feb 18, 2019
Denying special relativity theory ROTFFLMFAO

What an idiot. What do you do for a living, repair faucets? I suppose it's better than mopping toilets like @Benni.

Feb 18, 2019
SEU said:

"Really, jimmybobs? You really don't know?
If the cesium clock is on an airplane that is in the air at height, if it going West, it has to follow the curvature of the Earth. Sun rises in the East so that your pilot with the clock is heading West while gaining time - 3 hours if you're on the East coast of the US. Got it? Going East you're losing 3 hours. Still nothing to do with Time dilating"

I'm speechless.

Feb 18, 2019
Here ya go, jimmybobs

https://phys.org/...ies.html]https://phys.org/...ies.html[/url]

https://phys.org/...ies.html]https://phys.org/...ies.html[/url]

Feb 18, 2019
I thought you were tired of me SEU. You said bye bye. I'm just a stupid human and a fool. Why do you persist in communicating with me?

Feb 18, 2019
Posting the same link twice doesn't make it better.

Just sayin'.

And just for grins yuo might want to actually quote something from it that wasn't rated "1."

Feb 19, 2019
Here, I will teach you something, if you're smart enough to learn:

Show what makes Time dilate and what it looks like, idiot twat nutjob
It's already shown what makes time dilate. What does it look like? Well, that depends on what frame of reference you're looking at it from.

There you go. The essential lesson of relativity. All frames are equivalent, but not all frames are equal.
says Da Pussyman

Obfuscating and averting to avoid answering the question. It's already shown nothing. ROFLOL


Feb 19, 2019
1) have you ever had sex up against the microwave?
Does a cell phone tower that looks like a palm tree count?
2) are you allergic to sweet sorghum or no?
No, but I prefer the after taste of stevia.
3) have you ever had your comments here at physorg altered by sinister forces?
Comments removed by the moderator, so yeah.
4) have you ever called the NRC to recommend cooling meltdowns with dry ice?
Sea water is much better, see Fukushima.
5) have you ever worked for NASA as an engineer?
Pretty sure I was a conquistador in a past life.
6) were you in the control room all night when Curiosity landed?
Baatroom
7) were you ever a black psychiatrist?
Black holeatrist
8) do you believe that the only way to achieve zero growth is not to make any babies AT ALL for 100 years
It's a start.
9) do you believe the FACT that the solar system is just big enough to accommodate all the planets, is PROOF of the existence of god?
Which one?


Feb 19, 2019
Lying and denying again, I see.

Not to mention cherry-picking.

I'll quote it since you wanna lie about whether I posted it or not.

You told us there's no time dilation. Then you say in this post atomic clocks measure time dilation.


Waiting.

Feb 19, 2019
So, no answer. Kneejerk vote 1. Transparent as a 3-year-old with cookie crumbs on her shirt standing over the broken cookie jar.

Feb 19, 2019
Therefore time by definition has "ALWAYS" "existed" i.e. "ALWAYS existed".
So if TIME has always existed, how was it measured?
Benni

Where did I say/imply time was always measured?
All I said was, regardless of whether time has a beginning, and for the reasons I gave, it is correct to say "Time has always existed". How time is measured has nothing to do with that.

Feb 19, 2019
Hehehehehehehehh
Uhh nope - nuclear clocks can't measure Time dilation cuz Time no dilate. Pupils dilate; wimmings about to give birth dilate; blood vessels dilate; but ain't no Time dilation - no way Hosay.

Feb 19, 2019
So how come clocks moving relative to each other no faster than a man can run show it?

Why did yuo think they had 70-yard wires?

Teh stoopit. It burnz.

Remember yuo cited this experiment. Apparently yuo're too stoopit to actually read the paper on it.

Feb 19, 2019
More cookie crumbs. Mama still spank.

Feb 19, 2019
No Time dilation there either. Only Gravity can slow a clockworks mechanism or make it run faster when it is powered by Caesium atoms, for instance, according to location and other conditions. A Caesium powered clock can run for IIRC 30000 years. Ordinary clocks with a spring windup thingy run as long as it is wound up and gradually winds down.
Get used to it.

Feb 19, 2019
Only velocity is required. See Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity Theory. And start with the Ives-Stilwell experiment. 1936.

Noticed you don't want to talk about Chou et al. 2010. Run and hide.

Feb 19, 2019
Without careful thought, this might might sound wrong but, even if there was a beginning of time, the assertion "Time has always existed" logically must STILL necessarily be correct!

This is because "always" means "at all point in time" and if time had a beginning then there was no points in time 'before' that beginning (and, if fact, there wouldn't have been a 'before' that beginning else that said "beginning of time" wasn't the beginning of time thus contradiction!) and that means there would be no points in time 'before' that beginning for there to NOT exist a point in time because there was no such 'before' (else that said "beginning" wasn't the beginning of time!) for there to exist no time thus "Time has always existed" logically must still necessarily be correct!

Put more simply, at all points in time, time itself e