Astronomers map vast void in our cosmic neighborhood

Astronomers map vast void in our cosmic neighborhood
A smoothed rendition of the structure surrounding the Local Void. Our Milky Way galaxy lies at the origin of the red-green-blue orientation arrows (each 200 million lightyears in length). We are at a boundary between a large, low density void, and the high density Virgo cluster. Credit: R. Brent Tully

An astronomer from the University of Hawaiʻi Institute for Astronomy (IfA) and an international team published a new study that reveals more of the vast cosmic structure surrounding our Milky Way galaxy.

The universe is a tapestry of galaxy congregations and vast voids. In a new study being reported in The Astrophysical Journal, Brent Tully's team applies the same tools from an earlier study to map the size and shape of an extensive empty region they called the Local Void that borders the Milky Way galaxy. Using the observations of galaxy motions, they infer the distribution of mass responsible for that , and construct three-dimensional maps of our local Universe.

Galaxies not only move with the overall expansion of the universe, they also respond to the gravitational tug of their neighbors and regions with a lot of mass. As a consequence, they are moving towards the densest areas and away from regions with little mass—the voids.

Although we live in a cosmic metropolis, back in 1987 Tully and Richard Fisher noted that our Milky Way galaxy is also at the edge of an extensive empty region that they called the Local Void. The existence of the Local Void has been widely accepted, but it remained poorly studied because it lies behind the center of our galaxy and is therefore heavily obscured from our view.

Now, Tully and his team have measured the motions of 18,000 in the Cosmicflows-3 compendium of galaxy distances, constructing a cosmographic map that highlights the boundary between the collection of matter and the absence of matter that defines the edge of the Local Void. They used the same technique in 2014 to identify the full extent of our home supercluster of over one hundred thousand galaxies, giving it the name Laniakea, meaning "immense heaven" in Hawaiian.

For 30 years, astronomers have been trying to identify why the motions of the Milky Way, our nearest large galaxy neighbor Andromeda, and their smaller neighbors deviate from the overall expansion of the Universe by over 600 km/s (1.3 million mph). The new study shows that roughly half of this motion is generated "locally" from the combination of a pull from the massive nearby Virgo Cluster and our participation in the expansion of the Local Void as it becomes ever emptier.

Representations of the void can be seen in a video (below) and, alternatively, with an interactive model (below). With the interactive model, a viewer can pan, zoom, rotate, and pause/activate the time evolution of movement along orbits. The orbits are shown in a reference frame that removes the overall expansion of the universe. What we are seeing are the deviations from cosmic expansion caused by the interactions of local sources of gravity.


Explore further

Galaxy orbits in the local supercluster

More information: Cosmicflows-3: Cosmography of the Local Void, The Astrophysical Journal (2019). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2597
Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Citation: Astronomers map vast void in our cosmic neighborhood (2019, July 22) retrieved 22 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-07-astronomers-vast-void-cosmic-neighborhood.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.
3837 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 22, 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. In this paper we discuss the mechanism of creation and stabilization of the Macrostructure of the World in the frame of elastonic model.
https://www.acade...he_World

Jul 23, 2019
Beautifully done video of the void. Have to watch it again.

Jul 23, 2019
@Scientology_Egg_Unit, voids are Xenu, right?

https://en.wikipe...iki/Xenu

Wikipedia must really piss you off.

Jul 23, 2019
The Milky Way hiding effects is also apparent in the data set used to derive Laniakea, which frames the Local Void. Foryunately, we see enough to make sense of it.

Speaking of sense and nonsense:

@Scientology_Egg_Unit, voids are Xenu, right?


Ah yes, that *would* explain both the obvious creationism and the obviously odd handle all at once, plus the comments on a science site ('evangelization' attempts to infect others with the delusions)!?

Sadly, we can't easily test it.

Jul 23, 2019
The extra-galactic electrical circuitry is apparent in the animation

Jul 23, 2019
cantthink, those electrowhizbong currants are only apparent to wooloons such as yourself & your cult sockpuppers

Jul 23, 2019
Ah yes, that *would* explain both the obvious creationism and the obviously odd handle all at once, plus the comments on a science site ('evangelization' attempts to infect others with the delusions)!?

Sadly, we can't easily test it.
It also explains the claims of mind reading and so forth, as well as tactics most sites would sanction. It makes me wonder how many of them there are, given the persistently unscientific (and even bizarre) claims and squirming of the claimants to try to justify them. I'm wondering how many of them there are, but it wouldn't do to become a conspiracy theorist oneself, now would it? ;) But one can hardly help being suspicious. In this particular case, I am intensely suspicious because there isn't any other really good explanation but outright frank psychosis.

Jul 23, 2019
well DS, you could take that next step down my rarebite hole

to reconsider my hypedthesis

that this site is a front for Mental Health students to monitor the commentators, gathering material for the their papers.

Jul 23, 2019
Well, it's my opinion that Scientologists exhibit psychotic ideation, but it's just an opinion.

Jul 23, 2019
speaking of psychotic lunatic cults & the voids between their ears?
their dismissal of the sciences for charting the Cosmos?
can best be described as their denial of the existence of the Grand Canyon
after all, since there is nothing there to be observed & photographed?
there is nothing to believe in

& that every geologist, surveyor, cartographer & muleskinner are part of a vast conspiracy
to trick the denialists with a fake hole in the ground

oohhh, impeachable logic!
my favorite!

Jul 23, 2019
@RC, this is the right thread.

Jul 23, 2019
@RC,

For your convenience here is my last post on the other thread:

Relative to the road. But how about relative to the RED car? Same point.

Regarding the muon, yes, there is a frame in which the Earth comes speeding up to it and crashes into it. That's the muon's frame. It's a perfectly valid frame; and you can do all your calculations from that view point and they'll all work.

Just like the RED car's frame.

Jul 24, 2019
@Da Schneib.

Thanks, DS. Here's my reply in original thread:
@Da Schneib.
@RC,

Relative to the road. But how about relative to the RED car? Same point.

Regarding the muon, yes, there is a frame in which the Earth comes speeding up to it and crashes into it. That's the muon's frame. It's a perfectly valid frame; and you can do all your calculations from that view point and they'll all work. ..
Yes. Like I already said, relativity theory/transform 'maps' from EACH frame's view is already understood; and that is only for 'calculations' from each frame's point of view.

But the overall observer's point of view I made clear is the only way to obtain the objective reality: RED car/frame accelerated (moved/changed); not BLUE car/frame. :)

Separating/distinguishing 'relative realities' (maps) from the objective reality (territory) thus may help avoid cross-purpose frustration/anger. :)
Not denying 'relative realities'. Just discerning objective reality. :)

Jul 24, 2019
The Dipole Repeller

This dipole Repeller and the Shapley attractor
The Shapley Concentration
Sits 600 million Lys beyond the Great Attractor
The centre of the super cluster of galaxies
In which our Milky Way exists.
Although we can't feel it
We're in constant motion
The earth spins on its axis at 1,600 km/h
it orbits around the sun at about 100,000 km/h
The sun orbits our Milky Way galaxy at 850,000 km/h
The Milky Way galaxy and Andromeda
Are moving with respect to the universe at 630 km/s
https://dailygala...lky-way/

For is our galaxy accelerating towards greater density of mass
Or
Is this vacuum that mass has left for regions of greater mass?
Is this vacuum repelling mass to regions of greater mass?

Jul 24, 2019
Gotta go. See y'all tomorrow. G'night. :)

Jul 24, 2019
@Da Schneib.

Yes. Like I already said, relativity theory/transform 'maps' from EACH frame's view is already understood; and that is only for 'calculations' from each frame's point of view.
But you're designating one frame as somehow "more real" than any other. And that's not so. They're all real. One frame may seem more natural to you than others, but that doesn't make it "more real."

You can't assert one frame as "objective reality" and the other possible frames as "relative" or "unnatural" or "not as good" or "not as real" or even "not as useful." Under some conditions those other frames may in fact be more useful than the one you're trying to assert is "objective reality." For observers in those other frames, in fact, what they see from their frame is "objective reality."

Jul 24, 2019
But the overall observer's point of view I made clear is the only way to obtain the objective reality: RED car/frame accelerated (moved/changed); not BLUE car/frame. :)
For your chosen observer, perhaps. But you've chosen one frame and are attempting to assert it's somehow privileged above all others. And that's not so.

Let's say there's someone in the RED car. And let's say the windows are papered over and they can't see anything. Only while it's accelerating can they do a local experiment and tell; before and after that, they have no way to know. They have no way to know they weren't moving backwards and stopped, causing the same acceleration; for all they can tell, the acceleration might have left them motionless in your observer's frame, and the BLUE car might have run into theirs. The results to them would be the same. Only when they look outside can they see the frame of the outside observer.

Jul 24, 2019
Separating/distinguishing 'relative realities' (maps) from the objective reality (territory) thus may help avoid cross-purpose frustration/anger. :)
But see, you're still designating one observer as "special" or "more real" when you say something like "objective reality" about one observer's point of view and deny all others. And the entire point is, you can put an observer anywhere, in any state of motion, and for that observer objective reality is different from the one you've chosen.

For all the observer in the RED car can tell, they actually stopped moving backwards and the BLUE car ran into them.

Not denying 'relative realities'. Just discerning objective reality. :)
No, you're designating one observer as special, and they aren't. The story the RED car observer has to tell is different from your "privileged" observer's. They can't tell how fast they were moving, or even if they were moving at all, before or after the acceleration.

Jul 24, 2019
You have to pay attention to what every possible observer might see. They are all objective reality, for a particular observer.

Suppose the cars had magic tires that don't make marks on the pavement for someone to look at. Or suppose they're space ships that don't leave tracks. Suppose your outside observer moves at the same speed the RED space ship does, including the acceleration. They're in space; they also can't tell whether the RED space ship was motionless and accelerated toward the BLUE space ship, or was moving away from it and stopped. Now, after the collision, they would feel that their space ship was moving backwards, and the other had hit it. There would be no way for them to know unless they choose some particular frame arbitrarily.

Jul 24, 2019
You have to choose physics that are indiscriminate or agnostic about which frame you choose to view them from. That's the whole point; that's why it's called relativity.

This is what is known as "background independence."

Jul 24, 2019
You have to choose physics that are indiscriminate or agnostic about which frame you choose to view them from. That's the whole point; that's why it's called relativity.

This is what is known as "background independence."
.....then put your musing into perspective, like the perspective of what happens to LENGTH, DISTANCE & TIME at lightspeed but you don't like it, this because TIME on the Lorentz Contraction Curve goes to zero at the speed of light just as does LENGTH & DISTANCE. Your mindset about TIME being an independent 4th dimension doesn't sit well on the Lorentz Contraction Curve & you know it.

You want to talk about frames of reference? Start with the proven science of Lorentz Contraction, it is the ultimate of REFERENCE FRAMES & it negates your pathetically framed arguments that TIME is an independent 4th dimension that pre-determines how the Universe functions. Lorentz Contraction is the EVIDENCE that PASSAGE of TIME is not independent of kinetic energy.

Jul 24, 2019
& looney benni "voids" all over our screens

Jul 24, 2019
This void - this vacuum

There is only one frame of reference - The speed of light
Is the same for all observers
There is no need for more frames of reference as there's only one - the speed of light
Because
Although we can't feel it
We're in constant motion
The earth spins on its axis
Orbits around our Milky Way galaxy
The Milky Way galaxy
Is moving with respect to the vacuum
For
This single frame of reference
All speed is relative to the speed of light - This single frame of reference
The speed of light is not affected by the speed of the emitter

The vacuum is zero velocity as the speed of light is the absolute velocity from which all velocities are calculated

This void - this vacuum
For is our galaxy accelerating towards greater density of mass
Or
Is this vacuum that mass has left for regions of greater mass?
Is this vacuum repelling mass to regions of greater mass?

Jul 24, 2019
if vacuum is "repelling" mass?

siriusly?

if vacuum is "repelling" mass?

in addition to your vacuum cleaner sucking up dust bunnies?

it would also suck up boulders or anvils.
cause who needs to consider that pesky Gravity is a Constant?
Even in a vacuum

Jul 24, 2019
Vacuum Repelling Mass - The Dipole Repeller
rrwillsj> if vacuum is "repelling" mass?

siriusly?

if vacuum is "repelling" mass?

in addition to your vacuum cleaner sucking up dust bunnies?

it would also suck up boulders or anvils.
cause who needs to consider that pesky Gravity is a Constant?
Even in a vacuum

Rrwillsj
Have you taken up this Monastic Life?
For, rrwillsj
Are you walled up in this Monastery high on a mountain top?
Far away from this everyday life of mere mortals on the valley floor
For do you not know of this - The Dipole Repeller
Where
Vacuum repels mass to regions of greater mass!

For Rrwillsj, has your Lord forsaken you in your quiet contemplation on a hill top far away?

Jul 24, 2019
You want to talk about frames of reference? Start with the proven science of Lorentz Contraction, it is the ultimate of REFERENCE FRAMES & it negates your pathetically framed arguments that TIME is an independent 4th dimension that pre-determines how the Universe functions. Lorentz Contraction is the EVIDENCE that PASSAGE of TIME is not independent of kinetic energy.

This Wiki blurb was interesting;
Length contraction was postulated by George FitzGerald (1889) and Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1892) to explain the negative outcome of the Michelson–Morley experiment and to rescue the hypothesis of the stationary aether (Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction hypothesis).

And.... Why not just call it a 4th directional vector?
(Altho, "time" takes up way less letters and/or syllabic representation)

Jul 24, 2019

Rrwillsj
Have you taken up this Monastic Life?
For, rrwillsj
Are you walled up in this Monastery high on a mountain top?
Far away from this everyday life of mere mortals on the valley floor
For do you not know of this - The Dipole Repeller
Where
Vacuum repels mass to regions of greater mass!

For Rrwillsj, has your Lord forsaken you in your quiet contemplation on a hill top far away?

Your implication, G'ville is that an "anti gravity effect" of the void is repelling the mass of all the stuff in the filaments...
Why not just say that gravity is pulling the mass towards itself?

Jul 24, 2019
@Scientology_Egg_Unit, voids are Xenu, right?

https://en.wikipe...iki/Xenu

Wikipedia must really piss you off.
says Schneib

WHY do you persist in telling such blatant LIES, Schneib. RealiityCheck (in the other phorum) had already inquired of me as to whether or not I was a Scientologist after YOU claimed it, and I explained to him that I/We don't subscribe to ANY MAN-MADE RELIGIONS. And yet, here you are in THIS phorum continuing your LIES about me being a scientologist, even though YOU KNOW it is not true. Your lies are adding up, Schneib, and it will not go well for you, I promise you that.

Jul 24, 2019

Rrwillsj
Have you taken up this Monastic Life?
For, rrwillsj
Are you walled up in this Monastery high on a mountain top?
Far away from this everyday life of mere mortals on the valley floor
For do you not know of this - The Dipole Repeller
Where
Vacuum repels mass to regions of greater mass!

For Rrwillsj, has your Lord forsaken you in your quiet contemplation on a hill top far away?

Your implication, G'ville is that an "anti gravity effect" of the void is repelling the mass of all the stuff in the filaments...
Why not just say that gravity is pulling the mass towards itself?
says Whyde

The NEXT question should be: What is within that VOID that is CAUSING Mass to be repelled, or is it just that the Mass of the Virgo Cluster ahead has a stronger gravitation pull towards it?
The title of 'Dipole Repeller' is not sufficient to explain the method/process of that repulsion from the VOID being left behind.
-contd-

Jul 24, 2019
@Da Schneib.
But see, you're still designating one observer as "special" or "more real"...and deny all others.
The last line of my relevant post above clearly stressed I do NOT "deny all others", mate! So please disabuse yourself of that misimpression before going further. Thanks. :)

Anyhow, in the RED-car, BLUE-car, and Observer setup, I merely employ a SUFFICIENT number of frames to enable ALL concerned to compare notes and so TEASE OUT the truly objective reality above and beyond the 'relative reality' calculated/perceived by/from any ONE frame's relative view. That is the only way to actually UNDERSTAND the objective reality rather than just confine themselves to only each respective frame view. See?
For all the observer in the RED car can tell, they actually stopped moving backwards and the BLUE car ran into them.
Not so. The ACCELERATION PROFILES are different and can be sensed/confirmed by each car's occupants (please see my next post)....

….CONTINUED….

Jul 24, 2019
@Da Schneib ...CONTINUED.

CONSIDER RED/BLUE cars' respective acceleration profiles:

RED car: GENTLE acceleration up to coasting speed before collision occurs.

BLUE car: SUDDEN and SHORT-LIVED acceleration due to collision impact force.

See?

Even without observer to confirm which car moved/changed, logical/quantitative analysis after collision comparing respective car views tells that: RED car accelerated up to coasting speed; and that BLUE car experienced sudden/shortlived impact-like acceleration. :)

The extra OBSERVER frame is there to CONFIRM beyond any doubt what each car's occupants logically/quantitively deduced from their differing respective acceleration/deceleration profiles.

Analogous to your objective reality case in "Hubble Constant" thread, DS:
...measure acceleration by a local experiment: things fall. And everyone watching can see it; they may not all agree on the *amount* of acceleration, but they all agree your frame is accelerating.
See? :)

Jul 24, 2019
-contd-

From my understanding of the article, I think that it's interesting that the expansion of the rest of the Universe seems to be leaving our clustered region behind. Somehow, this doesn't seem plausible, as I see that ALL galactic clusters should be in 'lock step' like good little soldiers marching in formation behind the ones in front, rather than a haphazard, helter-skelter motion that is capable of leaving empty voids in their locality. Which is why I ask what is in those voids, OR what is the purpose in their emptying out.

To me, there seems to be some relationship to the expansion of the Universe that i.e. is responsible for leaving voids in previously filled regions. Another question is: Where is that expansion leading to, and what will happen to the galactic clusters that are far ahead of ours that may be the 'oldest' from the age of the BB? Are those oldest leading clusters leaving through an opening in the boundary? Or are they going to veer a few degrees....

Jul 24, 2019
But you haven't shown that a positive acceleration forward can be told from a negative acceleration (colloquially, "deceleration") when you're moving backward. So you still haven't accounted for the observer in the RED space ship. That frame is dismissed by you as some sort of "relativity frame" like it's not that observer's objective reality. It is.

Jul 24, 2019
The Dipole Repeller

Rrwillsj
Have you taken up this Monastic Life
For, rrwillsj
Are you walled up in this Monastery high on a mountain top
Far away from this everyday life of mere mortals on the valley floor
For do you not know of this - The Dipole Repeller
Where
Vacuum repels mass to regions of greater mass

Rrwillsj, has your Lord forsaken you in your quiet contemplation on a hill top far away

WG> Your implication, G'ville is that an "anti gravity effect" of the void is repelling the mass of all the stuff in the filaments...
Why not just say that gravity is pulling the mass towards itself?

The Milky Way is being repelled by an extragalactic region nearly devoid of galaxies
For a region nearly devoid of galaxies
Is double speak
For
Vacuum repels mass to regions of greater mass!
For to read more the mysteries of this vacuous vacuum
https://physicswo...n-trump/

Jul 24, 2019
But you haven't shown that a positive acceleration forward can be told from a negative acceleration (colloquially, "deceleration") when you're moving backward. So you still haven't accounted for the observer in the RED space ship. That frame is dismissed by you as some sort of "relativity frame" like it's not that observer's objective reality. It is.
......psycho-babble back to you.

There is only one reference frame in the entirety of the Universe, everything else is RELATIVE to lightspeed.

DISTANCE-TIME-LENGTH Lorentz Contraction is the highest level of education when it comes to understanding what Relativity is all about.

Lorentz Contraction is proven science, it can be measured & is indisputable, it's the reason scientists talk about TIME DILATION as a point of fact & not as a conjecture.

As Einstein points out in Special Relativity , TIME is equated to DISTANCE by him & DISTANCE is not a 4th dimension, right Whyguy?

Jul 24, 2019
@Da Schneib.

Ok. TWO spaceships facing each other. RED ship accelerates gently in FORWARD direction (according to internal accelerometer etc). RED PILOT feels GENTLY PRESSED against seat, but that soon stops when rocket motor shut down. Meanwhile BLUE spaceship has NOT fired rocket motor, and BLUE PILOT remains comfortable in his seat (ie, NOT 'feeling pressed' in any direction in seat). Suddenly BLUE spaceship PILOT is SAVAGELY (but short-lived) feels pressed against the seat-back! Likewise RED PILOT, equally suddenly/savagely, feels pressed forwards against seat restraints! They compare notes re rocket operation/acceleration profiles and SEAT-relative FORCES experienced. RED PILOT claims to have accelerated (changed) and hit BLUE ship. BLUE PILOT claims to have been 'minding own business when all of a sudden' RED SHIP hit BLUE ship. Observers on SPACE STATION (stationary wrt to BOTH ships initially) say ONLY RED SHIP moved (changed). Objective (common) Reality ascertained. :)

Jul 24, 2019
For more on these tasty tit-bits on this article - The Dipole Repeller

By
Physics-worlds Features Editor, Sarah Tesh

The Milky Way and neighbouring galaxies have a peculiar velocity, which is not explained by the universe's rate of expansion. In the past it has been suggested that this velocity is due to areas of space having different densities of galaxies. A high-density region is thought to attract galaxies, while a low-density region repels.

For these non believers in this power of this vacuum
Foreth
This respected journal, physics-world
Take great care in publishing their articles
If physics-world
Say
Vacuum repels, as sure as darkmatter and darkenergy exudes from this vacuum
You can take it from physics-world; vacuum repels mass to greater regions of mass

Maybe as WG has pointed out, physics-world has discovered this eternal dream
WG> Your implication, G'ville is that an "anti gravity effect" of the void is repelling the mass

Energy from the Vacuum!

Jul 24, 2019
For 30 years, astronomers have been trying to identify why the motions of the Milky Way, our nearest large galaxy neighbor Andromeda, and their smaller neighbors deviate from the overall expansion of the Universe by over 600 km/s (1.3 million mph). The new study shows that roughly half of this motion is generated "locally" from the combination of a pull from the massive nearby Virgo Cluster and our participation in the expansion of the Local Void as it becomes ever emptier.
......it's so simple to understand the Local Void & it's simplicity is the reason everybody is missing it, it's typical BARYCENTER ORBITAL MECHANICS. Go to WIKI or some place & see the animations on barycenter motion, it's the perfect description of the Local Void. Guess what's dead in the middle of a BARYCENTER of mass? Yeah, nothing. And guess what you see about the direction of motion of bodies within a BARYCENTER, half are going in a direction away from you & half towards you.

Jul 24, 2019
accelerates gently in FORWARD direction
How does the observer know if they can't look outside? How do they know they weren't going backward and decelerating? They get the same results either way.

Suddenly BLUE spaceship PILOT is SAVAGELY (but short-lived) feels pressed against the seat-back!
Nope. The BLUE spaceship pilot feels pressed forward as his space ship is pushed backward by the impact. This is probably the most important error in your post.

Observers on SPACE STATION (stationary wrt to BOTH ships initially) say ONLY RED SHIP moved (changed). Objective (common) Reality ascertained
Nope. The SPACE STATION is moving with the space ships and one fires a rocket. Meanwhile, another observer who happens to be passing by sees the RED ship decelerate and the BLUE ship run into it.


Jul 24, 2019
@Da Schneib. ....ERRATA:

Please REPLACE....

"Suddenly BLUE spaceship PILOT is SAVAGELY (but short-lived) feels pressed against the seat-back!"

WITH....

"Suddenly BLUE spaceship PILOT feels SAVAGELY (but short-lived) pressed FORWARD against seat-restraints!"

THANKS. :)

Jul 24, 2019
ALl you people go to WIKI or some place & see the animations on barycenter motion, it's the perfect description of the Local Void. Guess what's dead in the middle of a BARYCENTER of mass? Yeah, nothing
I heard they're gonna park WFIRST at L2...

Jul 24, 2019
@RC, you need to repudiate all the post after that since it was your thesis.

Jul 24, 2019
Multicoloured Thought experiments
RealityCheck> Ok. TWO spaceships facing each other. RED ship accelerates gently in FORWARD direction (according to internal accelerometer etc). RED PILOT feels GENTLY PRESSED against seat, but that soon stops when rocket motor shut down. Meanwhile BLUE spaceship has NOT fired rocket motor, and BLUE PILOT remains comfortable in his seat (ie, NOT 'feeling pressed' in any direction in seat).

These thought experiments
Need to take a leaf out of these artistic renditions we have come to respect after the PICCY DEBACLE
Do they have to be red and blue

p.s. RealityCheck, can we have a we bit more imagination as to these thought experiments

Jul 24, 2019
@Da Schneib.
accelerates gently in FORWARD direction
How does the observer know if they can't look outside? How do they know they weren't going backward and decelerating? They get the same results either way.
See edit:
(according to internal accelerometer etc)
:)

Suddenly BLUE spaceship PILOT is SAVAGELY (but short-lived) feels pressed against the seat-back!
Nope. The BLUE spaceship pilot feels pressed forward as his space ship is pushed backward by the impact. This is probably the most important error in your post.
See my ERRATA post editing that to "FORWARD against seat-restraints!". :)

Observers on SPACE STATION (stationary wrt to BOTH ships initially) say ONLY RED SHIP moved (changed)....
Meanwhile, another observer who happens to be passing by sees the RED ship decelerate and the BLUE ship run into it.
That is obviously a FOURTH 'relative reality' view NOT required to ascertain objective reality of collision event. :)

Jul 24, 2019
@RC, we've had a lot of disagreements, and I don't want to give the impression I'm attacking you. I'm opposing your views by pointing out that there is another way of interpreting events. Your repudiation of the error in your post is noted and appreciated-- but you didn't repudiate the consequent statements from that error. I realize it's difficult, but you must do this. Think it over again and see what you have to say.

Jul 24, 2019
@Da Schneib.

Just to be clear: my initial consequent statements were not in error; it was my typo that was in error. I based my consequent statements on the correct "FORWARDS against seat-restraints" case. It was my writing the post that was faulty, not my original setup and logics. Thanks. :)

Apparently we both posted within seconds of each other re your critique post and my Errata post. Maybe we should allow more time between replies to avoid such in future? I suggest 10 minutes, it that's agreeable/convenient for you. :)

Jul 24, 2019
@Da Schneib.

Just to be clear: my initial consequent statements were not in error; it was my typo that was in error. I based my consequent statements on the correct "FORWARDS against seat-restraints" case. It was my writing the post that was faulty, not my original setup and logics. Thanks. :)

ps: Apparently we both posted within seconds of each other re your critique post and my Errata post. Maybe we should allow more time between replies to avoid such in future? I suggest 10 minutes, it that's agreeable/convenient for you. :)

Jul 24, 2019
accelerates gently in FORWARD direction
How does the observer know if they can't look outside? How do they know they weren't going backward and decelerating? They get the same results either way.
See edit:
(according to internal accelerometer etc)
The accelerometer can't tell whether they were unmoving according to your "objective reality" and sped up when they accelerated, or moving backward before they accelerated forward until they came to a stop. And in fact neither can anyone else; all they know is the RED ship's state of motion changed. HOW it changed their velocity depends on the state of motion of the observer.

Your methods are not background independent. You are choosing one frame and making it special. That's not how things work. No matter how you try to do this, I can always find an observer who will see something different than your "objective reality."

Jul 24, 2019
......it's so simple to understand the Local Void & it's simplicity is the reason everybody is missing it, it's typical BARYCENTER ORBITAL MECHANICS. Go to WIKI or some place & see the animations on barycenter motion, it's the perfect description of the Local Void. Guess what's dead in the middle of a BARYCENTER of mass? Yeah, nothing. And guess what you see about the direction of motion of bodies within a BARYCENTER, half are going in a direction away from you & half towards you.

Actually, as a participant in this merry go round, assuming they/we are all moving in the same general direction, wouldn't they look to remain roughly the same distance from us...?

Jul 24, 2019
@Da Schneib. ....ERRATA:

Please REPLACE....

"Suddenly BLUE spaceship PILOT is SAVAGELY (but short-lived) feels pressed against the seat-back!"

WITH....

"Suddenly BLUE spaceship PILOT feels SAVAGELY (but short-lived) pressed FORWARD against seat-restraints!"

THANKS. :)

I guess it depends on if it was head on crash or rear ender...
and was Red pilot piloting under the influence?

Jul 24, 2019
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? We're all good down here, thanks for asking.

I suggest 10 minutes, it that's agreeable/convenient for you. :)


What if he wants to wait and see if it agreeable/convenient for you first? Because for the last half hour you have not been waiting for the 10 minutes, non.

Jul 24, 2019
RealityCheck
RealityCheck> apparently we both posted within seconds of each other re your critique post and my Errata post. Maybe we should allow more time between replies to avoid such in future? I suggest 10 minutes, it that's agreeable/convenient for you. :)

RealityCheck, you have just taken the spontaneity out of your commentaries

Jul 24, 2019
@Da Schneib.
And in fact neither can anyone else; all they know is the RED ship's state of motion changed. HOW it changed their velocity depends on the state of motion of the observer.
That is the purpose of the set-up stage of the experiment/demonstration, to set the starting parameters. I am trying to tie up the salient frames/aspects, and not just leave it a free-for-all to consider their 'relative reality' as the objective reality. Otherwise the confusions/anger etc I have witnessed for decades here and elsewhere will continue forever, unresolved. :)

CONSIDER: When remote observers 'see' an object falling towards/into a BH Event Horizon, they MAY 'assume' (from their 'relative reality' point of view) that it 'eventually stops falling' because reflected light from infalling object gets redshifted to the point of 'freezing the image' of that object as it gets to event horizon. HOWEVER: We know object ITSELF continues inwards due to GRAVITY WELL objective reality. Yes? :)

Jul 24, 2019
....it's so simple to understand the Local Void & it's simplicity is the reason everybody is missing it, it's typical BARYCENTER ORBITAL MECHANICS. Go to WIKI or some place & see the animations on barycenter motion, it's the perfect description of the Local Void. Guess what's dead in the middle of a BARYCENTER of mass? Yeah, nothing. And guess what you see about the direction of motion of bodies within a BARYCENTER, half are going in a direction away from you & half towards you.

Actually, as a participant in this merry go round, assuming they/we are all moving in the same general direction, wouldn't they look to remain roughly the same distance from us...?
...it depends on your orbital position within the cluster. Most small star clusters that orbit the Milky Way are of classic barycenter structure, wthin a short distant speeds of moving bodies can speed up or slow down in dramatic fashion, especially as they are drawn towards the center of mass.

Jul 24, 2019
RealityCheck, you have just taken the spontaneity out of your commentaries
.....and that's a good thing for him, gives him some time to think before stumbling into his next unintelligible bit of psycho-babble.

Jul 24, 2019
@granville583762.
RealityCheck
RealityCheck> apparently we both posted within seconds of each other re your critique post and my Errata post. Maybe we should allow more time between replies to avoid such in future? I suggest 10 minutes, it that's agreeable/convenient for you. :)

RealityCheck, you have just taken the spontaneity out of your commentaries
Not really, mate. At times, replies are delayed for many hours due to the parties being on the other side of the planet and hence one may need to go to bed while the other may just had breakfast. But in any case, when two people are considering/discussing a scenario/experiment 'set-by-step', it helps to avoid unnecessary cross-posting complications if there is an agreed period between their respective responses. It makes it a lot easier to correct typos and edit misspeaks etc before the other responds; so their response can have regard to those edits/corrections; helping forestall/minimise cross-purpose confusions. :)

Jul 24, 2019
RealityCheck
@granville583762.
RealityCheck
RealityCheck> apparently we both posted within seconds of each other re your critique post and my Errata post. Maybe we should allow more time between replies to avoid such in future? I suggest 10 minutes, it that's agreeable/convenient for you. :)

RealityCheck, you have just taken the spontaneity out of your commentaries
Not really, mate. At times, replies are delayed for many hours due to the parties being on the other side of the planet and hence one may need to go to bed while the other may just had breakfast. But in any case, when two people are considering/discussing a scenario/experiment 'set-by-step', it helps to avoid unnecessary cross-posting complications

RealityCheck, everyone was on the other side of the world on physics-world but the conversations went on for weeks without the problems you're experiencing
You have just taken the spontaneity out of your commentaries

Jul 24, 2019
That is the purpose of the set-up stage of the experiment/demonstration, to set the starting parameters.
Again, exactly the point: you've chosen a frame and are trying to say it's preferred somehow. There are other frames, and some of them disagree with your frame. Why are they "worse" or "not real" or "relativistic frames" or however you want to put it?

I don't see how your BH example forwards your argument. The outside observers never see the infalling object actually stop; they see it slow down until they'd have to wait longer than their lifetimes to see the next signal, but it will come. Meanwhile, occupants (observers!) on the object see themselves falling in toward the EH just as they expect, and their signals going out at the regular interval. Both sets of observers see things differently. Both see an objective reality. Neither is "right" or "wrong." They see what they see. And what you see is what you get.

Jul 24, 2019
@Benni.
it's typical BARYCENTER ORBITAL MECHANICS.
Barycenter gravitational orbits/dynamics were already well acknowledged understood since Newton's time. It is your barycentre claim for the central region/object in our galaxy which has been challenged and explained to you how it is not so. Recall my explanation that IF the galaxy centre was void of extreme mass (ie, BH) then the inner stars which have the closest approaches to that central region would NOT 'swerve' so severely and return back where they came from like they are observed to do. They would instead oscillate essentially equally from one side of their orbit to the other before returning to pass that region again and again. Have you dropped that particular "no extreme compact mass at centre of our galaxy" claim yet, mate?

ps:
....gives him some time to think before stumbling into his next unintelligible bit of psycho-babble.
Take your own advice there, @Benni. Good luck. :)

Jul 24, 2019
RealityCheck's spontaneity
RealityCheck, you have just taken the spontaneity out of your commentaries
Benni> .....and that's a good thing for him, gives him some time to think before stumbling into his next unintelligible bit of psycho-babble.

We have to give RealityCheck some credit, Benni
He has not deferred to the forum shaming and naming his imaginary monsters he's found under stones
RealityCheck's benefiting from all this quiet reflection of late

Jul 24, 2019
@granville583762.
apparently we both posted within seconds of each other re your critique post and my Errata post. Maybe we should allow more time between replies to avoid such in future? I suggest 10 minutes, if that's agreeable/convenient for you. :)
RealityCheck, you have just taken the spontaneity out of your commentaries
Not really, mate. At times, replies are delayed for many hours due to the parties being on the other side of the planet and hence one may need to go to bed while the other may just had breakfast. But in any case, when two people are considering/discussing a scenario/experiment 'set-by-step', it helps to avoid unnecessary cross-posting complications
everyone was on the other side of the world on physics-world but the conversations went on for weeks without the problems you're experiencing
Wow, @granville; how did that site manage that? Did no-one ever happen to post while their interlocutor was still editing theirs? Remarkable if so! :)

Jul 24, 2019
This flaw in viewing this person falling in

Da Schneib
The outside observers never see the infalling object actually stop; they see it slow down until they'd have to wait longer than their lifetimes to see the next signal, but it will come

To see a person falling in
Meaneths, reflected light
Foreth, Da Schneib light falling in
Is reflected of the person falling in
Travelling out for to see this person falling in

DaSchneib and RealityCheck
Do you realise how this sounds this side of this Time zone
Light reflected out this event horizon!

Jul 24, 2019
@Da Schneib.
There are other frames, and some of them disagree with your frame. Why are they "worse" or "not real" or "relativistic frames" or...
Perhaps I am not making it clear enough as to my motives for discerning the ACTUAL objective reality of a situation/event from ALL the 'relative realities' of same 'as seen by' all the DIFFERING 'possible' SR frame views that confuse the understanding and create all the animosity etc unless such discernment is done by someone so as to bring the discussions to the salient point rather than just forever playing with the SR possibilities while the objective reality is right there under everyones noses.

Maybe I can make it clearer: again refer to your OWN example:
...measure acceleration by a local experiment: things fall. And everyone watching can see it; they may not all agree on the *amount* of acceleration, but they all agree your frame is accelerating.
See? That 'defers to' GRAVITY WELL FRAME for THE Objective Reality view. :)

Jul 24, 2019
RealityCheck
Wow, @granville; how did that site manage that? Did no-one ever happen to post while their interlocutor was still editing theirs? Remarkable if so! :)

Foreth, RealityCheck
Everyone had 5 minutes before their next comment and 1 hour for editing
For this best bit, RealityCheck: Everyone had a 1000 words for their textual comments
Physics-world was in a completely different league, RealityCheck
It is a struggle with these 1000 characters
For RealityCheck, if you think my comments are lengthy, they used to run over these 1000 words

these 1000 words is why no-one ever happened to post while their interlocutor was still editing theirs?

Jul 24, 2019
@granville583762.
Light reflected out this event horizon!
No, mate. You misunderstood. Those reflections happen 'until' object goes into EH, not 'after'. Ok? Cheers. :)

Jul 24, 2019
@granville583762.
RealityCheck
Wow, @granville; how did that site manage that? Did no-one ever happen to post while their interlocutor was still editing theirs? Remarkable if so! :)

Foreth, RealityCheck
Everyone had 5 minutes before their next comment and 1 hour for editing
For this best bit, RealityCheck: Everyone had a 1000 words for their textual comments
Physics-world was in a completely different league, RealityCheck
It is a struggle with these 1000 characters
For RealityCheck, if you think my comments are lengthy, they used to run over these 1000 words
Wow. I bet the moderation and the time/words allowances made for a calm, polite and tolerant/magnanimous 'atmosphere' which allowed for measured clarifying/elaborating exchanges which prevented much exasperation/confusion between interlocutors. Cheers. :)

ps: So, may I ask why you are here and not still there, @granville? Or do you also still post there? :)

Jul 24, 2019
RealityCheck, this second flaw!
@granville583762.
Light reflected out this event horizon!
No, mate. You misunderstood. Those reflections happen 'until' object goes into EH, not 'after'. Ok? Cheers. :)

Gravity does not affect the velocity of light
Gravity only affects the frequency of light
Light continues at the speed of light out through this event horizon
For it does not stop till its frequency runs out of energy

We see this person falling in, in real time; as the speed of light is not effected by gravity

Jul 24, 2019
@RC, you need to focus on the examples. You can't tell me that they are wrong, nor why. You just keep asserting this "observed reality" that is actually an arbitrary frame you choose, and then not admitting it. You'll need to get over that.

What if the RED ship is going backwards, and the BLUE ship is going forwards toward it at the same speed, then the RED ship accelerates until it's not moving and the BLUE ship runs into it? You couldn't tell the difference between that and both sitting still and the RED ship running into the BLUE ship. No one inside those ships who can't see out could. This is just as likely as your scenario.

You need to answer this. And you haven't.

Jul 24, 2019
RealityCheck
ps: So, may I ask why you are here and not still there, @granville? Or do you also still post there? :)

Their commentary section was a long term experiment, that with P.Ws new layout, it came to an end

Jul 24, 2019
@granville583762.
Gravity does not affect the velocity of light
Gravity only affects the frequency of light
Light continues at the speed of light out through this event horizon
For it does not stop till its frequency runs out of energy
We see this person falling in, in real time; as the speed of light is not effected by gravity
True...as far as it goes, mate. But recall that the falling body's internal/surface PROCESSES by/from which light (photons) are emitted/reflected ARE SLOWED DOWN (hence redshirting observed)....AND as the gravity gets stronger, more extreme, those PROCESSES finally STOP once EH is reached. So it's not that the light is slowed/stopped; but that the CYCLING of EMISSION/REFLECTION PROCESSES are slowed/stopped....and hence no more emissions/reflections possible.

There is a subtle difference that is crucial to understanding what is actually objectively happening in that situation. :)

Jul 24, 2019
Da Schneib
@RC, you need to focus on the examples. You can't tell me that they are wrong, nor why. You just keep asserting this "observed reality" that is actually an arbitrary frame you choose, and then not admitting it. You'll need to get over that.

RealityCheck is in this world of P.W now, Da Schneib
For your approach require a completely different tack
All though Da Schneib
Your revealing a side rarely seen, which is rare indeed

Jul 24, 2019
RealityCheck
When you're observing a person falling in
That only takes a second to fall in covering 299792458m every second
As light is coming out at 299792458m every second
This person will be out of sight in milli seconds
There will be no reflected light from the person

Jul 24, 2019
@granville583762.
ps: So, may I ask why you are here and not still there, @granville? Or do you also still post there? :)
Their commentary section was a long term experiment, that with P.Ws new layout, it came to an end
I see. Pity. Oh well, mate, you found a new 'home' here. Welcome....and enjoy the ride, granville! :)

Jul 24, 2019
i was just pondering nothing

we say the phenomena called Black Holes exist since the effects of gravitational attraction are observable

& we are calling a cosmological modeling convention a void because of any apparent lack of observable gravitational attraction

SpaceTime tolls in as a vacuum

a gulf is what a typhoon left after taking a bite out of the coastline

a chasm is the messy aftermath when a continent has a contentious divorce

we call the bottom of great oceans the abyssal
& it certainly is filled with this & that & a "hole" lot of bric-a-brac

the religious are trapped in their pit of ignorance

a vacuity is what we call the flatulently fraudulent fakery of
woomonger sites

we call the wooloon's head's empty

Jul 24, 2019
RealityCheck
Where as you point out
AND as the gravity gets stronger, more extreme, those PROCESSES finally STOP once EH is reached. So it's not that the light is slowed/stopped; but that the CYCLING of EMISSION/REFLECTION PROCESSES are slowed/stopped....and hence no more emissions/reflections possible.

Which sounds as if you're saying: gravity has drained lights energy, so light goes dark
For its velocity is not affected
Light simply carries on till it disappears when its energy is gone

Jul 24, 2019
@granville583762.
When you're observing a person falling in
That only takes a second to fall in covering 299792458m every second
As light is coming out at 299792458m every second
This person will be out of sight in milli seconds
There will be no reflected light from the person
Yes, that is correct...again, as far as it goes..because just prior to that 'last second' stage, the object's internal/surface processes have effectively become so 'dilated' or slowed (whence the term time dilation) that the object is effectively 'frozen in state' internally/topographically, and hence it is understood to no longer emit/reflect in any physically meaningful/effective way as it enters that 'last second' interval of its linear spatial trajectory onwards/into EH. :)

Jul 24, 2019
that is the purpose of the set-up stage of the experiment/demonstration, to set the starting parameters.


Again, exactly the point: you've chosen a frame and are trying to say it's preferred somehow. There are other frames, and some of them disagree with your frame. Why are they "worse" or "not real" or "relativistic frames" or however you want to put it?
......this is pathetic, the two of you arguing about FRAMES & which are relevant & which aren't.

Do either one of you know what the ULTIMATE FRAME is? That it's existence is the foundational bed of Relativity? That there exists a FRAME that is a pure REST FRAME? In this literal REST FRAME nothing moves, DISTANCE & TIME are non-existent, inertia does not exist & movement from one point to the next is instantaneous......it occurs at the farthest end of the Lorentz Contraction Curve of relativistic speed, lightspeed.

If you two want to do something useful than have your silly food fights, go study the ultimate frame.


Jul 24, 2019
RealityCheck
The 3rd flaw
That the object is effectively 'frozen in state'
Light does not stop
It cannot be frozen in state

Jul 24, 2019
@granville583762.
Where as you point out
AND as the gravity gets stronger, more extreme, those PROCESSES finally STOP once EH is reached. So it's not that the light is slowed/stopped; but that the CYCLING of EMISSION/REFLECTION PROCESSES are slowed/stopped....and hence no more emissions/reflections possible.
Which sounds as if you're saying: gravity has drained lights energy, so light goes dark
For its velocity is not affected
In a way...but not exactly. It's subtle. The light itself is NOT actually CREATED/PROCESSED once the OBJECT'S internal/surface processes slowed to effectively 'frozen state'. See? It's the energy of the PROCESSES responsible for light emission/reflection that is effectively 'drained' or otherwise becomes 'unavailable' (insofar as the internal/surface 'cycling energy' is concerned); whereas the object's overall linear spatial-motion KINETIC energy increases commensurately while falling towards/into EH. :)

Jul 24, 2019
Benni
That there exists a FRAME that is a pure REST FRAME? In this literal REST FRAME

This vacuum is zero velocity!
The speed of light is the maximum speed for energy occupying travelling the vacuum!
Where light is this single frame of reference where all speed can be measured with respect to zero velocity of the vacuum!
A vacuum cannot move or be stretched!

Jul 24, 2019
@granville583762.
That the object is effectively 'frozen in state'
Light does not stop
It cannot be frozen in state
That's right. Its ONLY the infalling OBJECT (eg, a clock, a strobe-light or a mirror etc) that has ITS internal/surface processes 'frozen'...not the light emitted/reflected up to the moment that object's processes 'froze'. Once the object's processes 'freeze', there in NO MORE LIGHT emitted/reflected...hence no further consideration need be given to light that is (now) NEVER emitted/reflected towards any observer outside EH. You get my drift? :)

Jul 24, 2019
Atoms to nearly the speed of light

whereas the object's overall linear spatial-motion KINETIC energy increases commensurately while falling towards/into EH. :)

If gravity accelerates atoms to nearly the speed of light there will be a lot more active than simply kinetic energy?

Because this is Sagittarius*A's quiescence accretion disc anomaly
But gamma-rays will leave these atoms at the speed of light straight out this event horizon
Unaffected by gravity

Jul 24, 2019
Benni
That there exists a FRAME that is a pure REST FRAME? In this literal REST FRAME

This vacuum is zero velocity!
The speed of light is the maximum speed for energy occupying travelling the vacuum!
Where light is this single frame of reference where all speed can be measured with respect to zero velocity of the vacuum!
A vacuum cannot move or be stretched!
..............granDDDDDDDDDy............

Jul 24, 2019
@Da Schneib.
You can't tell me that they are wrong, nor why. You just keep asserting this "observed reality" that is actually an arbitrary frame you choose, and then not admitting it. You'll need to get over that.
But, mate, I'm NOT telling you they're "wrong". I acknowledge the relativity aspects/results from each frame's perspective; all that is understood long ago, before we even get to what I am trying to do/convey in this conversation with you. :)

What if the RED ship is going backwards, and the BLUE ship is going forwards toward it at the same speed,...This is just as likely as your scenario.
That's the point I am trying to get across, mate. The "one view being just as likely as the other" is NOT what I am talking about. That's already understood in context of SR theory/calculations etc. It's the OVERALL COMBINED VIEW that tells the FULL STORY irrespective of the PARTIAL SR treatments/calculations 'stories' from one frame or another (I'm NOT denying those, ok?). :)

Jul 24, 2019
Light cannot be frozen
For when it runs out of energy
It ceases to exist
Light continues moving and does not stop; it ceases to exist when it runs out of energy
Light cannot be frozen
RealityCheck, this is the theory to prove the theory - light is frozen in time theory

Jul 24, 2019
@granville583762.
If gravity accelerates atoms to nearly the speed of light there will be a lot more active than simply kinetic energy?...
But gamma-rays will leave these atoms at the speed of light straight out this event horizon
Unaffected by gravity
Once they reach EH the atom's internal/surface cycling/processing dynamics are effectively frozen due to the extreme GRAVITATIONAL effect on its INTERNAL energy states...so NO gamma-rays or any other light emissions/reflections are created/possible thereafter by/from that atom...hence a gamma-ray etc (from that atom) CANNOT BE emitted/reflected AT ALL...and hence such non-existent gamma-ray etc does not enter into any further considerations once that atom is at/below the EH. :)

Jul 24, 2019
This sparkly theory
Gamma-rays will leave these atoms at the speed of light straight out this event horizon
Unaffected by gravity

What is puzzling
Why this theory sprung out this vacuum just now?
for Benni
granDDDDDDDDDy will have to sleep on this as the dawn chorus beckons

Jul 24, 2019
Hey Granville! We just posted within seconds of each other, so you may have missed what I just clarified for you re your gamma-ray concerns. I'll wait until you read/acknowledge that before I address you again. Cheers. :)

Jul 24, 2019
It's the OVERALL COMBINED VIEW that tells the FULL STORY irrespective of the PARTIAL SR treatments/calculations 'stories' from one frame or another
But see, the overall combined view is all of the possible observers, and you're denying some of them. Like an observer in the RED ship who can't see out. And another observer who sees the RED ***and*** BLUE ships both moving. So that's at least two you can't explain, nor justify claiming their perceptions aren't "observed reality." And that's my point.

Jul 24, 2019
@Da Schneib.
It's the OVERALL COMBINED VIEW that tells the FULL STORY irrespective of the PARTIAL SR treatments/calculations 'stories' from one frame or another
But see, the overall combined view is all of the possible observers, and you're denying some of them. And that's my point.
The combined view takes into account all possible views, that is the definition of 'overall combined view' in this context. So I don't understand why you still have the impression I am "denying" any one or more of the SR views from all possible frames. I merely consider them ALL and tease out the objective reality via identifying the salient/effective frame or frames from which we/all can agree on a common (ie, objective in the situation) reality that avoids further 'partial SR frame' arguments/frustrations etc as has been going on for too long because of confusing PARTIAL SR 'relative realities' with OVERALL COMBINED objective reality (only discernible by considering FULL information). :)

Jul 24, 2019
ps @Da Schneib. I have to go now. See you tomorrow I hope. Thanks for your polite and constructive conversations so far on this. Much appreciated. Cheers. :)

Jul 24, 2019
The combined view takes into account all possible views
Well, yours doesn't. You've left out the observer in the RED ship and you've left out the observer who sees both ships moving. Both of those are as much "observed reality" as your preferred frame in which an outside observer is supposedly "motionless." This observer can't tell that either. Not without some other object they consider "motionless" too. Like for example the surface of the Earth, which is moving through space at some 600-odd km/s.

Jul 24, 2019
See, @RC, you keep trying to sneak a preferred frame in through the back door. It ain't gonna work. I know better. There aren't any preferred frames. It just ain't gonna fly.

Jul 24, 2019
Once they reach EH the atom's internal/surface cycling/processing dynamics are effectively frozen due to the extreme GRAVITATIONAL effect on its INTERNAL energy states...so NO gamma-rays or any other light emissions/reflections are created/possible thereafter by/from that atom.
.......UnrealRC has access to a gravity manufacturing machine that proves this, right? You have it tucked away in a file drawer & you turn it on from time to time, toss in a few sparkly radio-isotopes & VOILA, UnrealRC proves the 19th Century theory of electro-magnetic particles still exists in the brain of some bedraggled overage Trekkie wearing a tinfoil hat shaped to a point at the top.

Unreal, you & schneibo, a few others, need to learn some 21st Century physics. Einstein had well proven even in 1905 that gravity has no affect on the speed of an EM Wave, get that? Zero effect & you can't prove differently, that is until we can view a demonstration by your gravity machine.

Jul 24, 2019
@granville583762.
Gravity does not affect the velocity of light
Gravity only affects the frequency of light
Light continues at the speed of light out through this event horizon
For it does not stop till its frequency runs out of energy
We see this person falling in, in real time; as the speed of light is not effected by gravity
True...as far as it goes, mate. But recall that the falling body's internal/surface PROCESSES by/from which light (photons) are emitted/reflected ARE SLOWED DOWN (hence redshirting observed)....AND as the gravity gets stronger, more extreme, those PROCESSES finally STOP once EH is reached. So it's not that the light is slowed/stopped; but that the CYCLING of EMISSION/REFLECTION PROCESSES are slowed/stopped....and hence no more emissions/reflections possible.

What is "objectively" happening is that photons are being redirected into an orbit around a super-massive body...

Jul 24, 2019
that is the purpose of the set-up stage of the experiment/demonstration, to set the starting parameters.


Again, exactly the point: you've chosen a frame and are trying to say it's preferred somehow. There are other frames, and some of them disagree with your frame. Why are they "worse" or "not real" or "relativistic frames" or however you want to put it?
......this is pathetic, the two of you arguing about FRAMES & which are relevant & which aren't.

Do either one of you know what the ULTIMATE FRAME is? That it's existence is the foundational bed of Relativity? That there exists a FRAME that is a pure REST FRAME? In this literal REST FRAME nothing moves, DISTANCE & TIME are non-existent, inertia does not exist & movement from one point to the next is instantaneous......it occurs at the farthest end of the Lorentz Contraction Curve of relativistic speed, lightspeed.

What you're REALLY saying is.... SPACE is moving at speed of light...

Jul 25, 2019
What you're REALLY saying is.... SPACE is moving at speed of light... says Whyde

The only possible way that the Particles in that Space may move at light speed is if ALL Particles in that Space transform into massless Photons and gain massive Energy. It isn't Space itself that is moving at c.
When you say "Space", what portion of the Vacuum are you referring to? Interstellar Space and Intergalactic Space are 2 different situations and conditions that have to be accommodated before any Event or Action is allowed to occur.
Fortunately, Space can curve, bend, flatten, fold in on itself, form wormholes and tunnels that enable Mass/Energy to travel a shorter distance from A to B that would ordinarily take billions of Licht Jahre. That is because the Vacuous Vacuum of Space is so versatile and pliable that most, if not all, Events and Actions occur in it without a problem. It was made to do that.
Don't believe me? Move your hand in front of your face 4 times quickly sideways.

Jul 25, 2019
Do photons orbit Gravities Light Radius?
@granville
Gravity does not affect the velocity of light
Gravity only affects the frequency of light
Light continues at the speed of light out through this event horizon
it does not stop till its frequency runs out of energy
We see this person falling in as the speed of light is not effected by gravity
RC> True as far as it goes the falling body's internal/surface PROCESSES by/from which light photons are emitted/reflected ARE SLOWED DOWN (hence redshirting observed hence no more emissions/reflections possible

WG> What is "objectively" happening is that photons are being redirected into an orbit around a super-massive body

Gravities Light Radius: R = 2GM/C²
Gravity is zero at M, the centre of mass
Gravity does not exceed Gravities Light Radius
From R to mass's centre, gravity fall to zero
There's a femto-metre slim encircling zone where gravity = the escape velocity of light
So
Do photons orbit Gravities Light Radius?

Jul 25, 2019
Whydening Gyre
There's a femto-metre slim encircling zone where gravity = the escape velocity of light
From the infamous formula R = 2GM/C²
This femto-metre slim encircling zone
Is a fleeting moment in this vacuum
For the time it takes to cross 1Femto-metre
(1x10-15)/299792458 = 3.34x10-24s
For
Light takes 3 Trillionth, trillionths of a second to cross 1Femto metre

It is starting to look
That in a down to earth
Practicality sort of earth
When looked at in this cold light of day
This 40° heat of this Shire light of day
3 Trillionth, trillionth's of a second wide - as this proverbial crow flies, this speed of light
This 3 Trillionth, trillionth's of a second wide
Does not give this encircling photon much wiggle room
For, Whydening Gyre - Do photons orbit Gravities Light Radius?
Is looking highly unlikely

Jul 25, 2019
The article is not really about relativity aside from the fact that it bears on cosmology, which is based on relativity. But by all means, let us discuss that:

"You have to choose physics that are indiscriminate or agnostic about which frame you choose to view them from. That's the whole point; that's why it's called relativity. This is what is known as "background independence.""

The central idea in Einstein's relativity is to assert that acceleration of masses are the same independent of the interaction causing it. That means dynamic inertial and gravity masses are the same [ https://en.wikipe...nal_mass ], and it is a basis from which to assert that laws of physics are the same for all observers. That is the essence of nature (and I don't want to argue philosophic 'reality'). It implies that observers will not agree on order of events or properties of objects.

- tbctd -

Jul 25, 2019
- ctd-

That objects and their events are frame dependent starts with relativity (say, clock rate or different order of events) and becomes evident in quantum mechanics (say, no hidden variables and non-localized particles between observations), so relativistic quantum field theory contains both.

So laws are frame independent. What is "background independence" then? It is a theoretical idea for how theories are constructed besides being frame independent: "Background independence is a loosely defined property of a theory of physics. Roughly speaking, it limits the number of mathematical structures used to describe space and time that are put in place "by hand". ... background independence can be seen as extending the mathematical objects that should be predicted from theory to include not just the parameters, but also geometrical structures." [ https://en.wikipe...pendence ].

It is a philosophic idea at this stage, not used in modern theory.

Jul 25, 2019
- ctd-

Neither string theory nor selection bias ("anthropic principle") use background independence; string theory starts from a scaffold and selection bias "ends with a scaffold (random but habitable outcome)". And seeing how the universe appears spatially flat/eternally inflated on large scales, it does not seem like something that is useful but a result.

[Personally I entertain the idea that "foreground and background" is a result of selection bias on a physics that allows eternal inflation, simple as that. And leaving no room - or need - to have constraining on background independence. So of course my comments here should be read with that in mind.]

Jul 25, 2019
Sez WhyGuy:

What is "objectively" happening is that photons are being redirected into an orbit around a super-massive body
......and the same question to you that I posed to UnrealRC, how can YOU prove this? Don't tell me, you & Unreal trade off gravity producing machines whereby you can make an ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PHOTON WAVE go into orbits around something at any moment by the flip of a switch?

But you've forgotten something, the same thing Schneibo, UnrealRC, WhyGuy & a few other are unable to grasp, and that is an ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PHOTON WAVE is MASSLESS, and being massless it's speed is not governed by gravity fields of ANY strength.

Your argument is simply a throwback to 18th & 19th Century Cosmology that light consists of PARTICLES whose speed is governed by the strength of the gravity fields through which those PARTICLES are moving.

You are simply unable comprehend the fact that kinetic energy (1/2mv²) Escape Velocity calculations are not applicable to EM waves.


Jul 25, 2019
I assume that what "frame" is can be understood from Da Schneib's excellent comments. And "scaffold" is the analogy of a construction scaffold, it is a loose start - often flat space(!) - and can be thrown away after - or as in cosmology it stays because it is the result (flat space).

Finally, thinking about how time rates and event orders and even objects are fleeting characteristics of physics, it seems having local background geometry such as well - of no real consequence since geometry is globally flat - seems an easy buy (for me). It is the laws, embodied in the quantum fields, that are the more robust characteristics of nature.

To wit, since classical spacetime curvature can be folded into quantum field theory of gravity [ http://www.schola...ue_2014a ] maybe the field that completes physics on energy is the real deal and "curvature" is just a convenience description. (Give or take black hole cores.)

Jul 25, 2019
So laws are frame independent. What is "background independence" then? It is a theoretical idea for how theories are constructed besides being frame independent: "Background independence is a loosely defined property of a theory of physics. Roughly speaking, it limits the number of mathematical structures used to describe space and time that are put in place "by hand". ... background independence can be seen as extending the mathematical objects that should be predicted from theory to include not just the parameters, but also geometrical structures."


Why don't you actually go to a website that contains the full text of Einstein's Special & General Relativity & put up quotes from those documents, rather than text containing anonymous psycho-babble opinions that some author in WikiPedia.? This is what I do, and it infuriates the likes of jokers like you, Schneibo, UnrealRC, etc.

Have you ever seen any text in Special or General Relativity "SPACE-TIME CURVATURE"?

Jul 25, 2019
since classical spacetime curvature can be folded into quantum field theory of gravity http://www.schola...ue_2014a ] maybe the field that completes physics on energy is the real deal and "curvature" is just a convenience description. (Give or take black hole cores.)
You just read something someone else said & it sounded like such a clever use of words that you couldn't pass up using them.

Again torbjorn_b_g_larsson, where in Special Relativity does Einstein use the phrase "Space-Time Curvature"? The fact is he doesn't & you don't know that he doesn't because you've never read the text of the document to see if the phrase exists within the document.

Do you even know what Einstein defines as SPACE in SR? No you don't, he defines SPACE as DISTANCE, he states it very clearly & unmistakably using the two words side by side with one another, he does the same for TIME but YOU don't know these things. Would you like for me to Copy & Paste the appropriate text from SR?

Jul 25, 2019
The Dipole Repeller

For Those Who Have Lost The Thread Of This Thread On How It Is Progressing In Its Thread
The Dipole Repeller - Is this vacuum repelling mass to regions of greater mass
Which led to energy out this repelling vacuum
Which led to reference points in this vacuum
Which led to light slowing emerging out an event-horizon in this vacuum
Then light orbiting gravities light radius in this vacuum
Where
This
All fell flat on its Sparkly Theory
When
It was pointed out
Gravity only effects frequency
Gravity does not change a photons velocity, the speed of light

Foreth one and all, this thread is not wandering, but holding stead fast and true to this ethos
This void - this vacuum
For is our galaxy accelerating towards greater density of mass
Or
Is this vacuum that mass has left for regions of greater mass?
Is this vacuum repelling mass to regions of greater mass?

Jul 25, 2019
Special Relativity and General Relativity by dear old Albert

Foreth, it not for us to say
Not for us to interpret
Not for us to decide
Not for us to put words in dear old Alberts mouth
There is one person and one person only who knows what dear old Albert wrote
And that is dear old Albert himself
For
When one has read and retained the exact wording dear old Albert wrote in Special Relativity and General Relativity
Then one has a true understanding of Albert Einstein
For their appear a great disparity in what Albert actually wrote
To that what the general consensus of what everyone thinks he wrote

For we need the original scripts, scribed in dear old Albert's original hand
Of his original unedited by mortal hand
Special Relativity and General Relativity by dear old Albert

Jul 25, 2019
For we need the original scripts, scribed in dear old Albert's original hand
Of his original unedited by mortal hand
Special Relativity and General Relativity by dear old Albert;
.......granDy, this wouldn't suffice for those so deeply embedded in the fantasy world of Pop-Cosmology.

Their copout arguments would entail something along the lines of, "well, you need to understand that dear ole Albert's use of early 20th Century German didn't carry the same meaning in translating to early 20th Century English, therefore those of us living in the pop-culture Cosmology of 21st Century need the schneibo's & tbctd to clarify for the world's dummies the meaning of SPACETIME-CURVATURE-CONTINUUM as reinterpreted in Pop-Cosmology Fantasyland.

They will always overlook the fact Einstein never used the phrase SPACETIME CURVATURE but will invoke his name in such a context as if to imply he was the originator of it in Special or General Relativity where it never appears.

Jul 25, 2019
the pointless repetition of pop-quackery by henni-benni
& the gaggle of wooloons waddling nehind
rather renders their comments
"null & void"

Jul 25, 2019
Thereth gaggle of wooloons waddling nehind

Rrwillsj
the pointless repetition of pop-quackery by henni-benni
& the gaggle of wooloons waddling nehind
rather renders their comments
"null & void"

Rrwillsj, we're curious
Did you write this looking in a mirror?

The pointless repetition: By R r willsj

Thereth gaggle of wooloons waddling nehind
thiseth pointless repetition
Of pop-quackery
By henni-benni
& the gaggle of wooloons waddling nehind
Rather renders their comments
"null & void"

Jul 25, 2019
Special Relativity and General Relativity by dear old Albert
Benni> Their copout arguments would entail something along the lines of, "well, you need to understand that dear ole Albert's use of early 20th Century German didn't carry the same meaning in translating to early 20th Century English

Does this mean, Benni
The interpretation starts in the translation
The German language appears back to front when translated
To avoid interpretation, the literal translation has to be the starting point
Then its possible to see what he did not say
But
Most Germans speak clear English, which should have included Albert

Jul 25, 2019
is that you honking, granny?
hmm,
i'd thought you were going to trade in your old Model T for a spanking, new Hudson?
just can't make up your mind. eh?
yeah, tough choice, i'm sure...

since i'm too lazy to look it up... was Albert's mother-tongue
the Swiss-German dialect?
High or Low German dialects
Austrian or Lombard-Savoy?

Jul 25, 2019
Special Relativity and General Relativity by dear old Albert

Benni> Their copout arguments would entail something along the lines of, "well, you need to understand that dear ole Albert's use of early 20th Century German didn't carry the same meaning in translating to early 20th Century English

Does this mean, Benni
The interpretation starts in the translation
The German language appears back to front when translated
To avoid interpretation, the literal translation has to be the starting point
Then its possible to see what he did not say
But
Most Germans speak clear English, which should have included Albert
.......but granDy, not in the early 20th Century it was a slightly different German & English. Pop-Cosmologists today would argue that meanings of certain words that mean one thing now had a somewhat different meaning a hundred years ago, the two languages have evolved so to speak & Cosmologists are here in 2019 with the charge for taking up the slack.

Jul 25, 2019
@Benni
@granville
That is true. The German idiom/dialect that Einstein spoke did not have the colloquialisms that were used in other cities/locations in Germany or Austria. When he was invited to Oxford to speak and explain his math equations, he struggled to make the English-speaking audience understand him. Many of them never did get his drift even while was writing his numbers on 2 blackboards. He of course felt more at home in Germamy but for the start of WW2, where he found it necessary to remove to England. Still not having a good command of English, he was more in his element when speaking with English people who were proficient in German.
It IS possible that Einstein's equations may have been slightly changed by his time in England and the language differences.
When he removed to Princeton, he may have had more connections with German speakers and could relate his numbers far better. But it still remains that some things in GR may have been changed without his knowledge.

Jul 25, 2019
@torbjorn, thanks for the compliment.

Now, it's my understanding that the fact that GRT can determine the geometry of the situation is what makes it background independent (or at least partially so- one still has to deal with dimensionality, but not in our universe where it's always 4D). I think the situation is a bit different with QFT, where there are a multitude of fields to be dealt with. Is this not so?

Wikipedia says:
In general relativity, background independence is identified with the property that the metric of spacetime is the solution of a dynamical equation.

Jul 25, 2019
i just had a thought...
yeah, accidents happen

which ever dialect was Einstein's native language?
trully is irrelevant for his contributions to science

it was the meaning of his mathematics that give credence to his vision of physics

the engineers who developed & produced various forms of atomic energy devices?
did not need his words
his math was adequate to turn theory into reality

that is why the constant pecking at GR/SR by the wooloons
as they squabble over extemporaneous words

because they do not understand the math
& they cannot build working technology as an alternative to Einstein's foundation of the Modern World

& the wooloon hypocrites use the computer technology arising from his math to complain that it must be fakery!

cause, whining is all they got to offer after a century of pretentious quackery

Jul 25, 2019
@Benni
@granville
I believe that something was lost in the translation from German to English regarding Einstein's equations and his explanation of them. He may have meant "Distance" rather than 'time' to be connected to Space where Distance is calculable, and 'time' is dependent on mechanics. The reason being that Distance and Space are far more related than is 'time' with Space. I think that even 'MOTION' would have been far more appropriate, since Motion is quantifiable and is readily observed - whereas 'time' cannot be observed without clocks, and the passage of Events and Actions are related to Motion, not 'time'.
Ah, but it's much too late, isn't it.

Jul 25, 2019
Wikipedia says:
In general relativity, background independence is identified with the property that the metric of spacetime is the solution of a dynamical equation.
.....the Wiki guys did not get this from GR, I just word checked it in GR & it doesn't exist.

Why don't you Pop-Cosmology aficionados just read the documents in question rather than ask a 3rd party what's in it? Too hard?

Jul 25, 2019
I think that even 'MOTION' would have been far more appropriate, since Motion is quantifiable and is readily observed
.....ask & you shall recieve:

"Moreover, what is meant here by motion "in space" ? From the considerations of the previous section the answer is self-evident. In the first place we entirely shun the vague word "space," of which, we must honestly acknowledge, we cannot form the slightest conception, and we replace it by "motion relative to a practically rigid body of reference."

.......copied directly from Special Relativity. See how fast this can be by simply accessing the document rather than spending hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades like schneibo & torb do in looking up 3rd party opinions & coming up with wrong answers?

Jul 25, 2019
What have you gleaned from General Relativity regarding same? At the time of his writing of SR, was he aware of the Particles that are the constituents of Space, or did Einstein think that Space is empty? He didn't seem to shun the word, "Space" very effectively since he included it as a part of Spacetime.

Jul 25, 2019
On the morrow I will purchase a large and heavy book that thoroughly explains SR and GR to better acquaint ourself with the Mind of Einstein. It is evident that something is fishy/wrong about this preoccupation with the unobservable 'time'.

Jul 25, 2019
Oh, I forgot that Einstein only used 'time' as a part of Spacetime on the behest of his old professor, Hermann Minkowski. It is unknown if Minkowski would have hung, drawn and quartered Einstein if he refused to add 'time' into his equations, but Einstein may have only realised his mistake much later. He DID have a very sad countenance in the 1930s, and I don't think that it was only due to his not being able to go home again.

Jul 25, 2019
https://courses.l...ativity/
General relativity says that the orbiting clocks should tick about 45 millionths of a second faster than they would on Earth. The net effect is that the time on a satellite clock advances by about 38 microseconds per day.

Benni, this is but one of the sources for GR.
But there is something wrong. They are referring solely to CLOCKS and mechanism that is making it tick about 45 millionths of a second faster. They are talking about MECHANISMS, Benni. The clockworks, not 'time', but they have worded it as though it was 'time' that was causing the clock to tick faster. It is STRICLY A MECHANICAL CONSTRUCT. And yet, they are giving the credit for it to 'time', without realising that ONLY MECHANICS is involved.

Jul 25, 2019
@Benni
@granville
I believe that something was lost in the translation from German to English regarding Einstein's equations and his explanation of them. He may have meant "Distance" rather than 'time' to be connected to Space where Distance is calculable, and 'time' is dependent on mechanics. The reason being that Distance and Space are far more related than is 'time' with Space. I think that even 'MOTION' would have been far more appropriate, since Motion is quantifiable and is readily observed - whereas 'time' cannot be observed without clocks, and the passage of Events and Actions are related to Motion, not 'time'.
Ah, but it's much too late, isn't it.

"Distance is measured in meters or feet or whatever...
Without measuring sticks we can't measure distance, either...

Jul 25, 2019
says Whyde
But Distance is a part of Space. When you measure Distance, you are measuring it between 2 or more points IN Space. And when you measure something, the act of measuring IS Motion.
The link I put up is a lesson that regards and describes the mechanics of the clocks, both on the ground and GPS and the WHOLE ACTIVITY is a mechanical endeavour.
But then they go off and give credit to 'time' as though it had something to do with the adjustments of the clock's mechanisms, which it doesn't

Jul 26, 2019
says Whyde
But Distance is a part of Space. When you measure Distance, you are measuring it between 2 or more points IN Space. And when you measure something, the act of measuring IS Motion.

No. it isn't. It's only motion if your pulling out the tape measure.
The link I put up is a lesson that regards and describes the mechanics of the clocks, both on the ground and GPS and the WHOLE ACTIVITY is a mechanical endeavour.
But then they go off and give credit to 'time' as though it had something to do with the adjustments of the clock's mechanisms, which it doesn't

So.... how do measure the activity of the "clock" that is the universe? And what is it measuring?

Jul 26, 2019
Albert's Language Barrier

This Interpretation
Of Albert's Language Barrier

SEU, I believe that something was lost in the translation from German to English regarding Einstein's equations and his explanation of them

Benni, not in the early 20th Century it was a slightly different German & English. Pop-Cosmologists today argue that meanings of certain words that mean one thing now had a somewhat different meaning a hundred years ago

SEU, The German dialect Einstein spoke did not have colloquialisms used in other cities in Germany or Austria
When invited to Oxford to explain his math equations
He struggled to make the English-speaking audience understand him
Many of them never got his drift even while was writing his numbers on 2 blackboards

Mathematics is a Universal Language for it needs no Translation

p.s. Albert's inability to translate his ideas to words whatever language is dear old Albert's Obfuscation, for Artists simulations cross all barriers - Art speaks a 1000 words

Jul 26, 2019
Albert's interpretation of velocity induced mass

Take one of Albert's famous ideas - kinetic energy of motion
Straight from Isaac's laws of motion
Isaac's KE does not increase inertial mass
According to dear old Albert's translation barrier - mass increases with KE
According to Staffordshire University, mass does not increase its mass with velocity for it is KE
Particle accelerators, mass does not increase mass with velocity
There is this persistent interpretation from Albert's theories that Albert said mass increases with velocity

What to do –
Do we take observational observations from the highly skilled technicians operating particle accelerators
Or
Do we take the interpretations of a 100year old language barrier of what everyone is interoperating what we thought dear old Albert actual said

p.s. it's probably best to accept this Staffordshire University professors take on the facts from our particle accelerators and ignore Albert's interpretation of velocity induced mass

Jul 26, 2019
p.s. Albert's inability to translate his ideas to words whatever language is dear old Albert's Obfuscation, for Artists simulations cross all barriers


.......but granDy, not in the early 20th Century it was a slightly different German & English. Pop-Cosmologists today would argue that meanings of certain words that mean one thing now had a somewhat different meaning a hundred years ago, the two languages have evolved so to speak & Cosmologists are here in 2019 with the charge for taking up the slack.


......but this is not exclusive to the entirety of the text of SR & GR documents.

Pop-Cosmology fantasy culture today gives itself license for CORRECT interpretation of anything they want to make up. The best example for this is their use of "spacetime continuum" that appears only once in SR & for which the context is within three dimensional bounds & not about some mystical 4th dimension apart from Euclidean geometry.

Jul 26, 2019
But Distance is a part of Space. When you measure Distance, you are measuring it between 2 or more points IN Space. And when you measure something, the act of measuring IS Motion.
The link I put up is a lesson that regards and describes the mechanics of the clocks, both on the ground and GPS and the WHOLE ACTIVITY is a mechanical endeavour.
.......in SR Einstein is as precisely clear as can be made that DISTANCE is the SPACE he is referring to, that he deplores the use of the word SPACE: "From the considerations of the previous section the answer is self-evident. In the first place we entirely shun the vague word "space," of which, we must honestly acknowledge, we cannot form the slightest conception, and we replace it by "motion relative to a practically rigid body of reference."

But then they go off and give credit to 'time' as though it had something to do with the adjustments of the clock's mechanisms, which it doesn't
.....but Einstein doesn't do this.

Jul 26, 2019
Freeing Albert from this Aether of space

Benni, .......in SR Einstein is as precisely clear as can be made that DISTANCE is the SPACE he is referring to, that he deplores the use of the word SPACE:

Benni, this is why this distinction is made
Space:
The infinite vacuous vacuum of space

Jul 26, 2019
Benni, this is why this distinction is made
Space:
The infinite vacuous vacuum of space
......absolutely, Einstein makes that distinction very clearly:

"If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection 1) between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it."

......here in Part 3 of GR, Einstein is making it very clear that the Universe is a bounded finite stellar island within an infinite SPACE.

Jul 26, 2019
@Benni
Einstein makes that distinction...:
"If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection 1) between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it."
...a bounded finite stellar island within an infinite SPACE.
Careful! Einstein's wrote/published that 1916 (in German; and re-published 1920 in English). Since then, we realised THE universe must be INFINITE and 'flat', Energy-Space CONTINUUM. :)

Jul 26, 2019
Careful! Einstein's wrote/published that 1916 (in German; and re-published 1920 in English). Since then, we realised THE universe must be INFINITE and 'flat', Energy-Space CONTINUUM.
.......and pure unadulterated BS to this fantasy. Einstein was describing ENTROPY in his finite description I copied out of GR.

You remember what ENTROPY is, right? It's the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics discussing why a system must be a CLOSED SYSTEM for the distribution of energy to occur. It's the reason EINSTEIN discussed a "necessarily finite" Universe or ENTROPY could never exceed ZERO and everything would remain at absolute zero in temperature.

As I have advised schneibo & Torby on many occasions, take a Thermodynamics course so you can figure out why you are so bad at nuclear physics.


Jul 26, 2019
@Da Schneib.

Good morning (here), DS; apologies for not replying sooner. Anyhow...
See, @RC, you keep trying to sneak a preferred frame in through the back door. It ain't gonna work. I know better. There aren't any preferred frames. It just ain't gonna fly.
Not at all, mate; that is not what this is about. I acknowledge and understand the purpose of relativity equations/calculations etc as THEORETICAL abstract math/geometry technique/algorithm for specific 'perspectives' to determine what a frame 'sees', and then transform that perspective to other frame(s). But that is the partial theoretical view; not THE WHOLE UNDERSTANDING view of THE COMPLETE universal phenomena (as distinct from particular chosen event for study/analysis). See what I am talking about? The longstanding arguments from all these partial' views does not help (in fact it frustrates) understanding of the overall reality that is the universal phenomena AS A WHOLE irrespective of 'selective views'. Ok? :)

Jul 26, 2019
@Benni.
Einstein was describing ENTROPY in his finite description I copied out of GR. You remember what ENTROPY is, right? It's the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics discussing why a system must be a CLOSED SYSTEM for the distribution of energy to occur. It's the reason EINSTEIN discussed a "necessarily finite" Universe or ENTROPY could never exceed ZERO and everything would remain at absolute zero in temperature.
The universe being an INFINITE energy-space CONTINUUM means it's NOT a CLOSED SYSTEM. So your and Einstein's early 'understanding' of what the universe is was in error and has been superseded by the new understanding since Hubble. Hence your/Einstein's etc OLD 'understandings' and 'treatments' based on THERMODYNAMIC/ENTROPY principles/limitations (that apply ONLY to closed systems we arbitrarily 'select' for study/analysis for specific/limited purpose) does NOT APPLY to infinite, flat, energy-space continuum that is OVERALL NOT 'spherical' or 'other' closed 'shape'. Ok? :)

Jul 26, 2019
@RC, then show me an observer who can see this "universal frame." If there aren't any, it doesn't exist.

Jul 26, 2019
Energy-Space CONTINUUM

Space-time is a mathematical model that joins space and time into a single idea called a continuum. This four-dimensional continuum is known as Minkowski space
RealityCheck> Careful! Einstein's wrote/published that 1916 (in German; and re-published 1920 in English). Since then, we realised THE universe must be INFINITE and 'flat', Energy-Space CONTINUUM. :)

RealityCheck, whose idea was - energy space time continuum
Einstein's or Minkowskies

Jul 26, 2019
....... .take a Thermodynamics course so you can figure out why you are so bad at nuclear physics.


Lol. Coming from an idiot that doesn't know what a half-life is! You know the square root of zero about nuclear physics. As proven. Or any other kind of physics. Or science. Or much of anything, really.

Jul 26, 2019
Da Schneib, really
Da Schneib> @RC, then show me an observer who can see this "universal frame." If there aren't any, it doesn't exist.

Where popularity is in question, more tact is required, or that was a fruitless timeless wait

Jul 26, 2019
@Da Schneib.
@RC, then show me an observer who can see this "universal frame." If there aren't any, it doesn't exist.
There doesn't have to be a "universal frame". That is not what I am trying to convey. I am just pointing out that understanding the whole universal phenomena complete as an infinite, flat, open energy-space-recycling system is BEYOND the remit/purview (beyond the domain of applicability, if you like) of relativity's delimited abstract math/geometrical 'treatment' and 'modelling' etc.

Einstein though imagination was extremely important to understand conceptually rather than just analyse abstractly. He too attempted to convey understanding rather than just theoretical abstractions 'transform techniques' for treating/calculating specific events per se from whatever frame(s) perspective.

I am speaking of ways to 'understanding the whole'; not just 'analysing the parts'.

Anyhow, if you still miss that point, I think we should leave it there. Cheers. :)

Jul 26, 2019
But you ignore frames that are perfectly valid and show a different result, and then claim they aren't "objective reality." How does that work?

And if the frames all add up to some "objective reality?" How come you keep leaving some out?

Jul 26, 2019
And now you want to end the conversation because you've run out of excuses.

I know how I see that.

I'll let the reasonable people figure out what it looks like.

Jul 26, 2019
@granville583762.
whose idea was - energy space time continuum
Einstein's or Minkowskies
Energy-Space continuum was something my own theorising process came up with as the indicated logical step from self-evident starting postulate: that direction dimension (look around you) was the only absolutely independent physical potential entity/consideration; giving rise to all the realised entities/dynamics/phenomena that proceeded from that starting infinite/omnidirectional potentialities state. Energy-Space term is more physically real (compared with abstract space-time maths/geometry) construct; due to "energy" being potential/actual MOTIVE duality-lines of impulse/force tendency/effect of the directional energy matrix constituting 'infinite fabric' within/from/back-to which all higher level iterations/interactions of that 'fabric' arise/evolve/revert in eternal cycling forms/epochs observed as Energy-Space 'fabric' configurations/dynamics MOTION/CHANGES. :)

Jul 26, 2019
The whole is made of its parts. The parts of some mooted "universal whole" are simply the observations of all the possible observers. Deny any of those observers, and your conception of the whole is skewed. It's really just that simple.

Run away if you like, but everyone paying attention will know what happened here.

Jul 26, 2019
@Da Schneib.
The whole is made of its parts. The parts of some mooted "universal whole" are simply the observations of all the possible observers. Deny any of those observers, and your conception of the whole is skewed. It's really just that simple.

Run away if you like, but everyone paying attention will know what happened here.
I wasn't "running away", mate. Please don't do that. I was merely saying that if we can get no further toward a common understanding of what I was trying to convey (which is different from what you keep inferring) then it may be best to just leave it at "agree to disagree' as two gentlemen of science would if they cannot reach agreement on a point in this site's limited text discussion format. I am soon publishing my complete ToE work, so I can't spend time on discussions that aren't going anywhere here. I much appreciate your polite and constructive attitude/posts of late. Thanks for that. I wish you well in your own future works, mate. Cheers. :)

Jul 26, 2019
In your example, you cite a frame (the Earth's surface) as "motionless" that's actually moving at some 600 km/s in some random direction according to the CMB.

There isn't any universal frame. There isn't any "objective reality" but what observers see from their various frames, and some of them see different things than others.

Check out the relativity of simultaneity. Three observers see the same two events. One says they're simultaneous. One says event A happened before event B. One says event B happened before event A.

Which one has this supposed "universal view?" And if none of them have, then what really happened?

Jul 26, 2019
OK, so you surrender. You can't make up any more arguments to support your views. Every one you've tried has failed.

Thanks for that. This thread is bookmarked forever.

BTW this "universal view" looks a lot like asserting a supreme being. Thought you said you were an atheist.

Jul 26, 2019
@Da Schneib.
In your example, you cite a frame (the Earth's surface) as "motionless" that's actually moving at some 600 km/s in some random direction according to the CMB.

There isn't any universal frame. There isn't any "objective reality" but what observers see from their various frames, and some of them see different things than others.

Check out the relativity of simultaneity. Three observers see the same two events. One says they're simultaneous. One says event A happened before event B. One says event B happened before event A.

Which one has this supposed "universal view?" And if none of them have, then what really happened?
Not so, mate. I merely pointed out the reality of the Muon moving down to Earth rather than Earth moving towards the Muon, regardless of analytical constructs from/with which we can see the other frame's view. Please don't overlay your own misimpression on my point as clearly made in context. Thanks. :)

Jul 26, 2019
Run away if you like, but everyone paying attention will know what happened here.


It does not matter if they was paying attention or not paying attention, non. I think just about everybody who ever spent any time on the interweb about phsyics knows what happened here (or even over there) if Really-Skippy is involved. He is famous and has been for a long and another long time.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. If you are through with the Really-Skippy for a few minutes I have a question to ask him. Is that alright with you? Thanks, I'll make it short.

@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Oh yeah, all good with me, thanks for asking.

Since you have not been mentioning your toes about everything and spending so much time with other foolishment for a while does that mean you finished up with your toes about everything, all finished up with him and he's on the Amazon? What name do I look for to buy him? I sure would not like it if he gets sold out before I get me one.

Jul 26, 2019
@Da Schneib.
OK, so you surrender. You can't make up any more arguments to support your views. Every one you've tried has failed.

Thanks for that. This thread is bookmarked forever.

BTW this "universal view" looks a lot like asserting a supreme being. Thought you said you were an atheist.
You know I am atheist since age nine, DS. Please don't start using such tactics with me. As for everything else, I leave it at that, since we don't seem to be getting anywhere with the point I am trying to convey that is different from what you keep inferring/critiquing. Thanks again for your time and trouble, mate. Good luck. :)

Jul 26, 2019
Not so, mate. I merely pointed out the reality of the Muon moving down to Earth rather than Earth moving towards the Muon, regardless of analytical constructs from/with which we can see the other frame's view. Please don't overlay your own misimpression on my point as clearly made in context. Thanks. :)
You just chose the biggest one and made that your preferred frame, and then claimed it was some sort of universal objective reality. The muon's frame is just as valid as the Earth's surface moving at 600 km/s in the CMB frame.

Not to mention 60 km/s in rotation, which (since it's acceleration) we can measure.

You've already tried this argument; it didn't work last time. Now you're just recycling the same arguments over and over and ignoring the fact they were overturned.

This is dishonest.

Jul 26, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Not so, mate. I merely pointed out the reality of the Muon moving down to Earth rather than Earth moving towards the Muon, regardless of analytical constructs from/with which we can see the other frame's view. Please don't overlay your own misimpression on my point as clearly made in context. Thanks. :)
You just chose the biggest one and made that your preferred frame, and then claimed it was some sort of universal objective reality. The muon's frame is just as valid as the Earth's surface moving at 600 km/s in the CMB frame.
The CMB fame never comes into it, mate. I specifically spoke of the relative motions between the Muon and the Earth. Period. Ok? Are you going to now claim that the Muon (speeding at light speed towards Earth ground after its creation in gamma-ray collision in atmosphere) is causing Earth to move towards it; or is the Earth waiting to be hit by the Muon? Remember, the combined Muon-Earth 'dynamical system' is the relevant system here. :)

Jul 26, 2019
And left out the frame of the muon.

Like you always leave inconvenient frames out.

Causality has nothing to do with it. Yes, I assert the frame in which the muon is motionless is just as valid as the frame in which Earth is motionless. And they see different things. If you're asserting one or the other is invalid, prove it.

Jul 26, 2019
ERRATA

DS, it should have been:

- "cosmic-ray" NOT "gamma-ray";

- "(speeding at relativistic velocity towards Earth...") and NOT "speeding at light speed towards Earth...".

Thanks. :)

Jul 26, 2019
And BTW the Earth is not motionless with regard to the Sun, nor the other planets in the Solar System. Worse yet, the Earth's surface is rotating toward the East at some 60 km/s. So maintaining the frame of someone standing on the surface is some sort of objective reality is ridiculous.

Jul 26, 2019
@Da Schneib.
And left out the frame of the muon.
No. I am asserting that the physically real system as described (Muon-Earth) takes precedence over any theoretical relative construct for analysing either frame's view. Get that, mate? :)

CONSIDER. The incoming cosmic-ray hits an atom in Earth's atmosphere. Ignoring extraneous factors (such as that atom's own thermal etc motions within the atmosphere), that atom was ALREADY essentially within Earth's frame before it was hit by that cosmic-ray. After collision, a Muon is formed and it speeds down to Earth ground. Hence the Muon MOVED from the atmospheric 'production site' which was ALREADY within the Earth's frame. Hence the Muon started out within the Earth's frame that belonged to the Muon-Earth 'system' I am addressing (after the Muon's creation). Hence, within that Muon-Earth system, it was the Muon that moved down to Earth ground, rather than Earth ground moving up to the Muon 'production site" in atmosphere. Yes? :)

Jul 26, 2019
No. I am asserting that the physically real system as described (Muon-Earth) takes precedence over any theoretical relative construct for analysing either frame's view. Get that, mate? :)
Sure I do. You're asserting that the Earth's surface frame is special and the muon's frame isn't. Which is what I've been saying you've been asserting all along. And you're wrong.

Jul 26, 2019
@Da Schneib.
You're asserting that the Earth's surface frame is special and the muon's frame isn't.
You keep missing my actual point, mate. It's subtle. Please read again what I just highlighted for you above:
CONSIDER. The incoming cosmic-ray hits an atom in Earth's atmosphere. Ignoring extraneous factors (such as that atom's own thermal etc motions within the atmosphere), that atom was ALREADY essentially within Earth's frame before it was hit by that cosmic-ray. After collision, a Muon is formed and it speeds down to Earth ground. Hence the Muon MOVED from the atmospheric 'production site' which was ALREADY within the Earth's frame. Hence the Muon started out within the Earth's frame that belonged to the Muon-Earth 'system' I am addressing (after the Muon's creation). Hence, within that Muon-Earth system, it was the Muon that moved down to Earth ground, rather than Earth ground moving up to the Muon 'production site" in atmosphere. Yes? :)
Get it now, mate? :)

Jul 26, 2019
Repeating the same argument over and over is dishonest. Answer: is the muon's frame invalid somehow? If so, why?

Repeating an unanswered question is not dishonest. You haven't answered it; you're trying to pretend it doesn't exist.

You're falling back into old, demeaning, insulting arguments, @RC. You have violated our agreement.

Jul 26, 2019
No, DS. Please read that again. I specifically point out that:

- the ATOM which was hit by the cosmic-ray was ALREADY WITHIN the Earth frame. Ok?

- the Muon 'production site' in the atmosphere was hence ALSO WITHIN the Earth's frame. Ok?

- and that, hence the Muon STARTED WITHIN Earth's frame (because its 'production site' in the atmosphere was already within the earth's frame at time of impact by cosmic-ray). Ok?

- in effective reality (as opposed to purely abstract analytical construct views) BOTH Muon AND Earth ALREADY SHARED a Muon-Earth frame BEFORE Muon sped to Earth ground. Ok?

- hence within that Muon-Earth SYSTEM the Muon moved towards Earth ground rather than ground moving up to atmospheric Muon 'production site' higher up in Earth's atmosphere. Ok?

Please take your time to consider the implications of all that for my point, rather than keeping critiquing your own misimpressions of my point, mate. :)

Jul 26, 2019
- the ATOM which was hit by the cosmic-ray was ALREADY within the Earth frame. Ok?
No. An atom isn't in any particular frame. That's not how frames work. It's in all frames.

- the Muon 'production site' in the atmosphere was hence ALSO WITHIN the Earth's frame. Ok?
No. The muon "production site" is also in all frames.

You still don't understand what a frame is. It doesn't control what you see; it's just where you're standing, what direction you're looking, and when.

Your arguments are all based on this same misconception. I will go on to answer them all.


Jul 26, 2019
- and that, hence the Muon STARTED WITHIN Earth's frame (because its 'production site' in the atmosphere was already within the earth's frame at time of impact by cosmic-ray). Ok?
No. You have now made up a fantasy in which things are "in" your particular preferred frame, and not "in" any other. You don't know what a frame of reference is. Everything appears in all frames of reference.

- in effective reality (as opposed to purely abstract analytical construct views) BOTH Muon AND Earth ALREADY SHARED a Muon-Earth frame BEFORE Muon sped to Earth ground. Ok?
No. An object is not "in" a frame of reference. It is in every frame of reference. You don't know what a frame of reference is.

Jul 26, 2019
@ Really-Skippy. I am not a physics scientist like you are not either, but I hate to embarrass you.

Cher there ain't no way in the universal reality universe that any three things can share the same reference frame if they are moving with relativistical velocity in relative to each other. Your atom will have one reference frame which will be different than what the muon sees from his reference frame and that will be different than what you see standing down there with your silly looking pointy cap on.

There is a reason they call it relativistical velocity,,,,, because something moving at that speed can't share his reference with something that is not going that fast. It would be unreal physical,,,, but it would be very Really-Skippy like.

Sorry about that Cher, I know it's embarrassing for the Ira-Skippy to school you on the easy stuffs.

Jul 26, 2019
- hence within that Muon-Earth SYSTEM the Muon moved towards Earth ground rather than ground moving up to atmospheric Muon 'production site' higher up in Earth's atmosphere. Ok?
No. Your arguments above are void; you are mistaking a frame of reference for some sort of association or effect. Frames of reference don't depend upon associations or effects. And you seem to have forgotten the Earth frame; the Earth is not moving toward its atmosphere, so the muon "production site" is moving with the Earth.

You're still trying to sneak a preferred frame of reference in by the back door. And it's still not gonna work.

Now, I've categorically refuted your assertions. And you still haven't stated that the muon has no frame of reference, nor any reason why that frame of reference is invalid somehow, much less explained why other than with a bunch of obfuscations that have been decisively refuted.

So what next? You gonna repeat this several more times to see if I'll get tired of it?

Jul 26, 2019
@Da Schneib.

Now you're just nitpicking, mate. When scientists say Earths frame, they mean the centre of mass that is the earth system, NOT each individual atom of rock and atmospheric gas. Yes? Else, by your above extraneous and irrelevant frames approach, scientists could never actually experiment/analyse any one 'system' at all. Read it again, DS; and focus on the salient frame(s)/point, DS. :)

Jul 26, 2019
@Uncle Ira.
Cher there ain't no way in the universal reality universe that any three things can share the same reference frame if they are moving with relativistical velocity in relative to each other.
You missed that the atom and the Muon BOTH STARTED OUT in Earth's frame (see my post to DS just above re that). The Muon produced at that atom's site up in atmosphere STARTED OUT in Earths frame because the atom was in Earth's frame when it was hit and produced the Muon at that site up high in Earth's atmosphere/frame....from which position WITHIN EARTH's frame it then moved towards ground. Ground didn't 'rise up' into atmosphere. :)

There is a reason they call it relativistical velocity,,,,,
Sure, that's the abstract relativity analysis/view. No problem. BUT that hasn't helped to actually understand the whole shebang, has it? Else the professional theory would already BE complete, wouldn't it, mate?

ps: Take off your tinfoil hat, Ira. It isn't helping you. :)

Jul 26, 2019
No, it's not nitpicking. You're leaving out not just entire frames, but an infinite number of them. That's not making your argument very credible.

And yes, each individual atom of rock and atmospheric gas can have an observer moving the same as it is, and those observers will all see their atom of rock and atmospheric gas as motionless, never mind inertial. You pick your frame and you ask what it observes. They are all objective reality.

Jul 26, 2019
See, here's the thing: real physics is agnostic about frames. Whatever frame you use, you can always justify it by using a transform to get the view from other frames. A frame of reference is not necessarily attached to any object; if the object moves, it doesn't "enter another frame of reference." But if you want to see it as motionless, and it moves, that means ***you*** have to change frames. It doesn't mean the object did.

Galileo discovered this in 1632. Read this: https://en.wikipe...variance

Jul 26, 2019
@Da Schreib.

Not sure whether its your style or your obtuseness making you miss the whole point of what I am saying, mate. YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT THINGS WHICH I HAVE *NO ARGUMENT WITH*. That is all well and good stuff for abstract analysis etc etc.

BUT THAT IS NOT what I am trying to get across. My point is that we NEED MORE than just that sort of abstract theoretical constructs to actually UNDERSTAND THE UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE...and not just keep playing around with abstract analytical treatments (which are good enough for technical purposes) which do NOT seem to lead to COMPLETE THEORY and UNDERSTANDING in REAL MEANINGFUL TERMS instead of the continuing metaphysical extrapolations which lead to singularities, wormholes, infinite regression etc etc which lead NOWHERE in terms of actually UNDERSTANDING THE UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE INFINITE SYSTEM.

ps: Apologies for all the 'capitalisations', mate; but it seems the point is being missed, and that is an attempt to break through. :)

Jul 26, 2019
You missed that the atom and the Muon BOTH STARTED OUT in Earth's frame
I did not miss anything Cher but I can see why you wish me to miss it. Ira-Skippy schooling the Really-Skippy has to be painful.

Cher, the point you are missing is two separate things, will always have their own reference frame and never the same reference frame. How do I know you are missing that? Well since you ask I will tell you.

When scientists say Earths frame, they mean the centre of mass that is the earth system,
That's how. When scientist-Skippys say that they mean the location of the tool they are using to measure with.

My superduper muon measuring machine at home in Louisiana will measure the teenyweeny part of a second or the force of gravity different than the same machine somewhere else. They don't share the same relativical reference frame.

Cher, I hope you did not put this foolishment in the toes book, if you did Amazon probably won't sell him on there.

Jul 26, 2019
Ira, you are talking cheese while I am talking sense. Please go back and re-read what I clarified for DS. If that still fails you, then it may be time to re-do your reading/comprehension lessons asap. Good luck, Ira. :)

Jul 26, 2019
UNDERSTANDING THE UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE INFINITE SYSTEM
How you going to ask somebody to understand it when you can not even explain how "UNIVERSE", and "WHOLE" and "INFINITE" might be a true thing when you string the words together Like the DaSchneib-Skippy said, you are getting out of physics world into the world of a one true god. Is Egg-Skippy rubbing off on you?

Jul 26, 2019
abstract analytical treatments
But they're not abstract. That's the whole point. They're concrete. That's what the object at that location at that time sees; it's very concrete.

You still don't understand what a frame is.

Jul 26, 2019
@Uncle Ira.
UNDERSTANDING THE UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE INFINITE SYSTEM
How you going to ask somebody to understand it when you can not even explain how "UNIVERSE", and "WHOLE" and "INFINITE" might be a true thing when you string the words together Like the DaSchneib-Skippy said, you are getting out of physics world into the world of a one true god. Is Egg-Skippy rubbing off on you?
There is applied physics...there is theoretical physics...and then there is cosmological physics. I am talking about the last discipline, Ira. You and DS have been talking about the former two disciplines. Get it?

That's what the whole professional ToE effort is all about...understanding the whole shebang, and not just some limited/trivial parts of it. Sure, abstract relativity theory helped advance the technical calculations/analysis etc of particular systems. But relativity abstractions have not provided that final step towards full understanding of the universe. Time for reality. :)

Jul 26, 2019
@Da Schneib.
abstract analytical treatments
But they're not abstract. That's the whole point. They're concrete. That's what the object at that location at that time sees; it's very concrete.

You still don't understand what a frame is.
And you still keep diverting yourself to things which are not in dispute, mate. Consider. What is the REALITY...that the Muon moves towards Earth ground...or that Earth ground is moving towards the 'production site' of the Muon at cosmic-ray impact of atom high up in earth's atmosphere? Please bear in mind I have no argument with all the things you have been talking about; but it's that they are irrelevant to the point/context I am trying to get across. Now, which is the more physically REAL THING/EVENT...that Earth ground moves up to high atmospheric altitude OR that Muon heads for Earth ground once created within Earth's atmosphere/frame? Your answer to that, DS, will tell whether we are wasting time here or not. Thanks. :)

Jul 26, 2019
Time for reality. :)


Well oh goody. This ought be big fun.

Before you ask us to just take your word for it. Explain for us just how you KNOW the whole shabang is INFINITE. What test you done for that. What physical laws make you THING that?

Skippy, you ain't never get any real REALITY physicist-Skippy's to just take your word for it. Choot, you can't even get any of the real REALITY couyon-Skippys on the interweb to take your word for it.

So why can't you explain why you KNOW that the UNIVERSE is really reality INFINITE? The Egg-Skippy can answer it, he thinks there is a ONE/UNIVERSAL/TRUE/GOD. Which I put about as much stock in as I do the old MAFIA/TROLL/MOD/BOT/GANG theory.

Don't be shy, explain it why you KNOW this thing Skippy?

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy. (That's coonass for: "How you like me now Skippy?")

Jul 26, 2019
@Uncle Ira.
Explain for us just how you KNOW the whole shabang is INFINITE. What test you done for that. What physical laws make you THING that?
I first allow for the Occams razor principle; you know what that is, I trust, Ira. It says the theory/model with the least number of assumptions is likely the most true. The least number of assumptions is that the universal process is infinite/eternal in extent/duration. That was the first clue that everyone had access to before the Big Bang 'religion' sprung up (but now thankfully faded away under its own absurdities based on all sorts of arbitrary assumptions which Occam's Razor has been cutting into of late).

Then I formulated a theorising process based only on real things; no ad hoc assumptions or metaphysical mumbo jumbo (upon which the likes of BigBang/Religious 'theories' ultimately depend on at base).

So, the Occam's Razor PLUS "Self-directing Reality Logic Train" gives complete ToE/understanding of WHOLE UNIVERSE. :)

Jul 26, 2019
UNDERSTANDING THE UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE INFINITE SYSTEM
How you going to ask somebody to understand it when you can not even explain how "UNIVERSE", and "WHOLE" and "INFINITE" might be a true thing when you string the words together Like the DaSchneib-Skippy said, you are getting out of physics world into the world of a one true god. Is Egg-Skippy rubbing off on you?

Hey, Ira... :-) They still have a horse track in Lake George?

Jul 26, 2019
Earth ground is moving towards the 'production site' of the Muon at cosmic-ray impact of atom high up in earth's atmosphere
But it's not. The Earth doesn't move toward the atmosphere. I already said that.

You're ignoring what I say. This is very impolite.

Do you think the muon showers produced by cosmic rays are somehow motionless with respect to the atmosphere? This is obviously wrong.

Jul 26, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Earth ground is moving towards the 'production site' of the Muon at cosmic-ray impact of atom high up in earth's atmosphere
But it's not. The Earth doesn't move toward the atmosphere. I already said that.

You're ignoring what I say. This is very impolite.

Do you think the muon showers produced by cosmic rays are somehow motionless with respect to the atmosphere? This is obviously wrong.
No no no. mate. It's the COLLISION EVENT (of the atmospheric atom/impact which PRODUCED the Muon) that was already within Earth frame. I already made that clear. Only afterwards does the Muon move downwards (as part of the overall 'shower of particles'). :)

Anyhow, do you get that now, DS?

At the moment of Muon creation, the Atom and Muon were BOTH already within Earth's frame. In REALITY, the ONLY CHANGE within Earth-Muon 'system' is: the Muon moves downwards towards Earth ground; NOT the Earth towards Muon.

We now seem to agree on that reality. Great! :)

Jul 26, 2019
But the collision point is moving at 60 km/s East, plus moving in orbit around the Sun, plus moving around the galaxy with the Sun, plus moving with the galaxy...

And meanwhile the muon is moving too, and we can measure the time dilation that creates.

There isn't any "in" a frame. Nor is an object tied to any frame.

You're still not getting this.

One can define a frame in which no object is motionless. It's a perfectly valid frame. And you get all the same results as any other frame, after transforming.

Jul 26, 2019
@Da Schneib.
But the collision point is moving at 60 km/s East, plus moving in orbit around the Sun, plus moving around the galaxy with the Sun, plus moving with the galaxy...

And meanwhile the muon is moving too, and we can measure the time dilation that creates.

There isn't any "in" a frame. Nor is an object tied to any frame.

You're still not getting this.
Sure. I never said otherwise. But you have to whittle down all those extraneous vector factors that are common to the 'system' (ie, the Muon-Earth system) which is moving as you say and taking all the atmosphere etc with it. The system then 'boils down to' the atmospheric atom/Muon at moment of impact; the creation and motion of Muon from that impact site within Earths frame; and the Muon striking Earth (rather than Earth striking Muon). That is the essential reality, irrespective of the abstract frame treatments for other purposes than just distilling the overall reality in that Muon-Earth system. Ok? :)

Jul 26, 2019
There is no "muon-Earth system." There is the frame in which the Earth is motionless, and the frame in which the muon is motionless, and they are different frames.

Jul 26, 2019
@Da Schneib.
There is no "muon-Earth system." There is the frame in which the Earth is motionless, and the frame in which the muon is motionless, and they are different frames.
Sure; but only for the purposes and definitions of the analytical construct, not the overall reality of the situation. Like I can define North is South and South is North on the globe...but that doesn't mean the globe has changed in reality, only means that my abstract analytic construct has reversed/re-defined the polar co-ordinates. See? I am not talking of such things; because I am not arguing against such things (they are useful constructs, to be sure; but they do not have regard to the overall reality, only to the specific analytics of the situation being arbitrarily re-defined/reversed etc).

Anyhow, I am running out of time to allocate to this today, so I will soon have to log out. But I will wait and see if we are finally 'there' (on the same page) or not before I do log out. :)

Jul 26, 2019
@Uncle Ira.
...
So, the Occam's Razor PLUS "Self-directing Reality Logic Train" gives complete ToE/understanding of WHOLE UNIVERSE. :)

Drivin' that train,
High on cocaine.
Casey Jones ya better watch your speed...

Jul 26, 2019
@DS, sorry, have to leave now. Will be back tomorrow if I can. Cheers. :)

Jul 26, 2019
the overall reality of the situation
Which you are defining in only one of the obvious (never mind the infinity of other) frames: the Earth surface frame.

Jul 27, 2019
the overall reality of the situation
Which you are defining in only one of the obvious (never mind the infinity of other) frames: the Earth surface frame.

Man, DS...
YOu almost even scrambling MY brain, much less RC's... :-)

Jul 27, 2019
It's not that hard. I'm saying the same thing over and over: what you see is what you get. But it's not all there is.

Jul 27, 2019
RealityCheck: this muon imbedded in its rock

Your bridge of quiet reflection awaits
Foreth, if we believe this athletic Muon
Racing to the ground in 2.2 micro-seconds
It will have embedded its self in a rock with its feet up given light a run for its money

For as this muon covered this 100km in 2.2micro-seconds
This muon and photon
Side by side
Crossed this 100km and struck this ground together
For
RealityCheck, your bridge awaits
As you require more deep quiet reflection, by your babbling brook
For
RealityCheck, the answer is simple
This muon does not decay in motion
Foreth
This muon decays when stationary
It decays in 2.2micro-seconds when it imbeds itself in its rock

Foreth RealityCheck, in the long nights to come in your quiet reflection under your bridge
This will come to as the moonbeams ripple in reflection as you sit by your babbling brook
Photon and muon strike the ground together as this muon decays in 2.2micro-seconds, embedded in its rock

Jul 27, 2019
@Da Schneib.

Good morning (here) again, mate!
overall reality of the situation
Which you are defining in only one of the obvious (never mind the infinity of other) frames: the Earth surface frame
But, DS, the universe cares NOT the slightest jot for OUR abstract analytical frames constructs. There is only one reality to physical events; and that's whatever the universe is doing!....irrespective of where WE view/describe/calculate etc FROM.

That is the point I am trying to get across, DD; but you keep defaulting to abstract analytical constructs while I am trying to move on from all that.

Sure, relativity/frames theoretical/analytical constructs/techniques have helped in the technical sense; but it has OBVIOUSLY NOT got us to where we want to go; ie, compete reality based theory/understanding of the universe as it is, irrespective of what various perspectives we bring to observed phenomena.

Don't you want to move forward to complete theory/understanding, DS? :)

Jul 27, 2019
Obviously the universe cares a great deal, because the calculations all come out correct. It's not abstract at all; this is the delusion you've been trying to tout for years. You insist math is abstract, when "I have three bananas" is obviously concrete. Try stealing a banana from a chimpanzee; they'll get mad. Looks pretty concrete to me. If the universe didn't care about math, bananas would appear and disappear without rhyme or reason. But no; bananas are a conserved quantity (unless you eat one). Why are there conservation laws, if the universe doesn't "care?" The chimps know nothing of Einstein, but they have empirically arrived at the basis both of math and of the conservation laws.

Are you claiming bananas aren't real?

Jul 27, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Obviously the universe cares a great deal,
Do you realise you are 'anthropomorphising' the situation, DS? The objective universal phenomena does not 'care' in any way shape or form, mate. The 'laws' you speak of are DEDUCED by US from the universe's actions which 'happen all the time' irrespective of whether anyone is 'watching and 'analysing' them via/from their abstract analytical/observational constructs. Please try to wean yourself away from your 'anthropomorphised view' of what the universe is/does, mate. Only then will you be able to move on from all this relativity stuff...which is OK for technical purposes, but NOT very helpful for understanding the objective reality of what the universe is and does, irrespective of any sentient beings analysing its behaviour and arriving at helpful 'laws' by which to predict/calculate energy/action effects/consequences etc for any particular event as viewed from whatever frame(s). Good luck. :)

Jul 27, 2019
What, you think there's little teeny people standing on muons? Yet still their average decay time is the same- in their frame.

And you ignored the point about the bananas and whether math is abstract or not.

Jul 27, 2019
@DS, please see edited post below. Thanks. :)

Jul 27, 2019
Talking about bananas now? Is helo menelo around? Can't be too far away for him to read talk of bananas.
;)

Jul 27, 2019
@Da Schneib.
you think there's little teeny people standing on muons?
Very droll. :) Actually, DS, it's you implying universe is 'sentient' and 'cares about' what we/muons etc do. Whereas universe does what it does, irrespective whether you (or your muon) 'cares'.
Yet still their average decay time is the same- in their frame.
Didn't your physics teachers explain to you that 'frames of reference' are SUBJECTIVE things, DS? That is why TRANSFORM equations were developed! so we can SWITCH SUBJECTIVE views at will in order to 'see', 'calculate' etc what happens from OTHER SUBJECTIVE frame perspectives. The universe is an OBJECTIVE thing in its own right; irrespective of our SUBJECTIVE views and treatments, DS. :)
the point about the bananas and whether math is abstract..
We had that conversation before, mate. My point was/is: CURRENT maths allows UNREAL "dimensionless point", produces UNDEFINED results, etc. Hence CURRENT abstract maths is unable to model REALITY ToE. :)

Jul 27, 2019
The universe doesn't care. But we do.

Meanwhile, we can only see what we can make an observer (also called an instrument) for. We by definition can't know any more than that.

Is that subjective? That's not a physics question. It's philosophy, and I abhor philosophy, and I am not going to discuss it with you.

Jul 27, 2019
@Da Schneib.
The universe doesn't care. But we do.

Meanwhile, we can only see what we can make an observer (also called an instrument) for. We by definition can't know any more than that.

Is that subjective? That's not a physics question. It's philosophy, and I abhor philosophy, and I am not going to discuss it with you.
No, mate, it's NOT "philosophy", it is the objective reality that the universe exists and processes irrespective of whether we have ways and means of analysing delimited parts of the observable phenomena. Why do you default to the defeatist 'we can never know the objective universal reality' philosophical point of view, DS? That gets us nowhere. Its only when we move on from the limited 'relative-realities only' point of view that we can tackle the objective universal reality and then model it via more capable reality-based maths constructs. Good luck to you and to us all, DS. Cheer up!...it's not as beyond our capabilities as you seem to think, mate. :)

Jul 27, 2019
On Philosophy
Actually, science was preceded by Philosophical discourse thousands of years ago. It was the curiosity that was developed from Philosophy that opened up the experimental requirement to PROVE how things work. Physics is experimentation that is brought about by a theory or an hypothesis. And theories and hypotheses stem from philosophical conjecture regarding the Natural Order. It is the Natural Order and Natural Laws that must be understood. And experimentation assists to attain that understanding.
Without the advent of Philosophical Discourse, there would not have been the curiosity waiting to be sated/satisfied by devising experiments and its tools to either prove a theory right or prove it wrong.

Jul 27, 2019
it is the objective reality
So if it is how come you can't tell me where I would stand to see it.

Jul 28, 2019
@Da Schneib.
it is the objective reality
So if it is how come you can't tell me where I would stand to see it.
Your question goes (again) to our theory/frames views/analysis constructs/conclusions when calculating/describing particular event from any/all frame perspectives so as to give a technical 'accounting' of the overall energy budget involved in the entirety of the event under study/analysis using our abstract maths techniques and transforms. But the point I am trying to get across is that the overall universal objective reality 'does not care' about you or me, or where we happen to be standing when events occur all over the infinite universal extent.

DS, we seem to be going around at cross-purposes. I'm 'talking apples' while you 'talking oranges'.

I long understood the limited domain of applicability/purpose of SR abstract analytical/maths construct which is ok for *its* purpose; but I've moved on...to *complete objective reality* construct. :)

Jul 28, 2019
Your question goes (again) to our theory/frames views/analysis constructs/conclusion
No, it doesn't. It goes directly to objective reality: Where can I stand to see what you claim? I can tell you where to stand to see every one of my claims. Try me (if it hasn't already been proven by previous exchanges where you left valid places to stand out of your consideration and won't admit it).

Show it or drop it and admit there is no place anyone can stand to see your "universal objective reality." In either case it doesn't exist.

Jul 28, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Your question goes (again) to our theory/frames views/analysis constructs/conclusion
No, it doesn't. It goes directly to objective reality: Where can I stand to see what you claim? I can tell you where to stand to see every one of my claims.....there is no place anyone can stand to see your "universal objective reality."
Calculating perspectives etc is not the be all and end all towards understanding something, mate; else we would ALREADY have the *complete* theory. Yes? :)

Be clear: I've NOT been trying to identify a place from which to stand and view the overall objective reality. That is NOT what I was trying to get across. The point of working out a *complete reality construct* is that it does NOT depend on such 'piecemeal' co-ordinate views/analyses constructs and abstract/unreal maths.

ps: Recall @rpenner (after I challenged him/others on it) admitting that frames/co-ordinate systems are NOT REAL things; only convenient maths abstractions. Ok? :)

Jul 28, 2019
It's not "calculating perspectives." You either can or cannot say where to stand to see your "universal objective reality." I can say where to stand to see every one of mine. For example inside the RED car.

And if you can't say, then there isn't any place, and your "universal objective reality" doesn't exist. Which is what I've been saying the whole time.

Jul 28, 2019
At the very heart of any symmetry is equality, which we represent symbolically with "="

Having codified it makes is no less abstract or real than it is, for anyone, anywhere, anytime who chooses to acknowledge the reality of its essence, its presence, and the significance of its meaning.