Einstein's general relativity theory is questioned but still stands for now

Einstein's general relativity theory is questioned but still stands for now, team reports
A star known as S0-2 (the blue and green object in this artist's rendering, on the left in S0-2-color-v2b) made its closest approach to the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way in 2018. Andrea Ghez's research team conducted the most comprehensive test ever of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity near this enormous black hole. Einstein's theory of general relativity is the best description of how gravity works. Ghez and her team collected data at the W.M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii. Credit: Nicolle R. Fuller/National Science Foundation

More than 100 years after Albert Einstein published his iconic theory of general relativity, it is beginning to fray at the edges, said Andrea Ghez, UCLA professor of physics and astronomy. Now, in the most comprehensive test of general relativity near the monstrous black hole at the center of our galaxy, Ghez and her research team report July 25 in the journal Science that Einstein's theory of general relativity holds up.

"Einstein's right, at least for now," said Ghez, a co-lead author of the research. "We can absolutely rule out Newton's . Our observations are consistent with Einstein's theory of general relativity. However, his theory is definitely showing vulnerability. It cannot fully explain gravity inside a black hole, and at some point we will need to move beyond Einstein's theory to a more comprehensive theory of gravity that explains what a black hole is."

Einstein's 1915 theory of general relativity holds that what we perceive as the force of gravity arises from the curvature of space and time. The scientist proposed that objects such as the sun and the Earth change this geometry. Einstein's theory is the best description of how gravity works, said Ghez, whose UCLA-led team of astronomers has made direct measurements of the phenomenon near a supermassive black hole—research Ghez describes as "extreme astrophysics."

The laws of physics, including gravity, should be valid everywhere in the universe, said Ghez, who added that her research team is one of only two groups in the world to watch a star known as S0-2 make a complete orbit in three dimensions around the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way. The full orbit takes 16 years, and the black hole's mass is about four million times that of the sun.

The researchers say their work is the most detailed study ever conducted into the supermassive black hole and Einstein's theory of general relativity.

The key data in the research were spectra that Ghez's team analyzed this April, May and September as her "favorite star" made its closest approach to the enormous black hole. Spectra, which Ghez described as the "rainbow of light" from stars, show the intensity of light and offer important information about the star from which the light travels. Spectra also show the composition of the star. These data were combined with measurements Ghez and her team have made over the last 24 years.

Spectra—collected at the W.M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii using a spectrograph built at UCLA by a team led by colleague James Larkin—provide the third dimension, revealing the star's motion at a level of precision not previously attained. (Images of the star the researchers took at the Keck Observatory provide the two other dimensions.) Larkin's instrument takes light from a star and disperses it, similar to the way raindrops disperse light from the sun to create a rainbow, Ghez said.

"What's so special about S0-2 is we have its complete orbit in three dimensions," said Ghez, who holds the Lauren B. Leichtman and Arthur E. Levine Chair in Astrophysics. "That's what gives us the entry ticket into the tests of general relativity. We asked how gravity behaves near a supermassive black hole and whether Einstein's theory is telling us the full story. Seeing stars go through their complete orbit provides the first opportunity to test fundamental physics using the motions of these stars."

Ghez's research team was able to see the co-mingling of space and time near the supermassive black hole. "In Newton's version of gravity, space and time are separate, and do not co-mingle; under Einstein, they get completely co-mingled near a black hole," she said.

"Making a measurement of such fundamental importance has required years of patient observing, enabled by state-of-the-art technology," said Richard Green, director of the National Science Foundation's division of astronomical sciences. For more than two decades, the division has supported Ghez, along with several of the technical elements critical to the research team's discovery. "Through their rigorous efforts, Ghez and her collaborators have produced a high-significance validation of Einstein's idea about strong gravity."

Keck Observatory Director Hilton Lewis called Ghez "one of our most passionate and tenacious Keck users." "Her latest groundbreaking research," he said, "is the culmination of unwavering commitment over the past two decades to unlock the mysteries of the supermassive black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy."

The researchers studied photons—particles of light—as they traveled from S0-2 to Earth. S0-2 moves around the black hole at blistering speeds of more than 16 million miles per hour at its closest approach. Einstein had reported that in this region close to the black hole, photons have to do extra work. Their wavelength as they leave the star depends not only on how fast the star is moving, but also on how much energy the photons expend to escape the black hole's powerful gravitational field. Near a black hole, gravity is much stronger than on Earth.

Ghez was given the opportunity to present partial data last summer, but chose not to so that her team could thoroughly analyze the data first. "We're learning how gravity works. It's one of four fundamental forces and the one we have tested the least," she said. "There are many regions where we just haven't asked, how does gravity work here? It's easy to be overconfident and there are many ways to misinterpret the data, many ways that small errors can accumulate into significant mistakes, which is why we did not rush our analysis."

Ghez, a 2008 recipient of the MacArthur "Genius" Fellowship, studies more than 3,000 stars that orbit the supermassive black hole. Hundreds of them are young, she said, in a region where astronomers did not expect to see them.

It takes 26,000 years for the photons from S0-2 to reach Earth. "We're so excited, and have been preparing for years to make these measurements," said Ghez, who directs the UCLA Galactic Center Group. "For us, it's visceral, it's now—but it actually happened 26,000 years ago!"

This is the first of many tests of general relativity Ghez's research team will conduct on stars near the . Among the stars that most interest her is S0-102, which has the shortest orbit, taking 11 1/2 years to complete a full orbit around the black hole. Most of the stars Ghez studies have orbits of much longer than a human lifespan.

Ghez's team took measurements about every four nights during crucial periods in 2018 using the Keck Observatory—which sits atop Hawaii's dormant Mauna Kea volcano and houses one of the world's largest and premier optical and infrared telescopes. Measurements are also taken with an optical-infrared telescope at Gemini Observatory and Subaru Telescope, also in Hawaii. She and her team have used these telescopes both on site in Hawaii and remotely from an observation room in UCLA's department of physics and astronomy.

Black holes have such high density that nothing can escape their gravitational pull, not even light. (They cannot be seen directly, but their influence on nearby is visible and provides a signature. Once something crosses the "event horizon" of a black hole, it will not be able to escape. However, the star S0-2 is still rather far from the event horizon, even at its closest approach, so its photons do not get pulled in.)


Explore further

Test of general relativity could potentially generate new gravitational models

More information: T. Do el al., "Relativistic redshift of the star S0-2 orbiting the Galactic center supermassive black hole," Science (2019). science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi … 1126/science.aav8137
Journal information: Science

Citation: Einstein's general relativity theory is questioned but still stands for now (2019, July 25) retrieved 22 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-07-einstein-relativity-theory.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.
5025 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 25, 2019
"We're learning how gravity works. It's one of four fundamental forces and the one we have tested the least," she said. "There are many regions where we just haven't asked, how does gravity work here? It's easy to be overconfident and there are many ways to misinterpret the data, many ways that small errors can accumulate into significant mistakes, which is why we did not rush our analysis."

At least someone is having realistic and honest approach for testing General relativity theory.

Jul 25, 2019
"We're learning how gravity works. It's one of four fundamental forces and the one we have tested the least," she said. "There are many regions where we just haven't asked, how does gravity work here? It's easy to be overconfident and there are many ways to misinterpret the data, many ways that small errors can accumulate into significant mistakes, which is why we did not rush our analysis."

At least someone is having realistic and honest approach for testing General relativity theory.
I don't think her approach, per se, differs fundamentally from anything else deployed over the past 100 years of testing GR. She's simply making a statement about error-checking in her work, also par for the physics-course.

Jul 25, 2019
"It cannot fully explain gravity inside a black hole, and at some point we will need to move beyond Einstein's theory to a more comprehensive theory of gravity that explains what a black hole is."

I don't think the 'inside' of a BH has any physical meaning, particularly in view of the outside of it already being rather parsimonious in its properties. I don't think they will find any more 'is'ness about a BH other than that it   I S   (a naked lump of) gravity, that may or may not have angular momentum and/or charge.

Jul 25, 2019
My opinion is that we'll need a quantum gravity theory to tell what's inside a black hole's event horizon. For now I'm content to have GRT be "the theory of everything gravity in the universe except inside black holes."

Jul 25, 2019
My opinion is that we'll need a quantum gravity theory to tell what's inside a black hole's event horizon. For now I'm content to have GRT be "the theory of everything gravity in the universe except inside black holes."
How will the theory be falsified? Science defines 'theories' as being falsifiable. Otherwise it's metaphysics, like Penrose' Cyclic Conformal Cosmology, which is nothing more than my favorite cosmogenesis. I like it (others think it's dumb or at least overrated--so there), it has a lot going for it, but it's more of a n o t i o n   than a theory.

Jul 25, 2019
The choice of words in the article - "beginning to fray at the edges" - suggests that we see more problems instead of increased validity. It is just that the closer we come to a black hole with testing GR, the more urgent the physics of the black hole becons. And it is hidden from view.

I think it is a stretch to claim that "It cannot fully explain gravity inside a black hole" because that depends on the physics at high energies. The consensus expectation is that GR has to break down, but in the same way that inflation protected the early universe from necessarily - Planck observed slow roll inflation can protect it stretching eternally back in time - attaining Planck energies the high energy density core of a black hole can be protected.

- tbctd -

Jul 25, 2019
Curving space is naked empire.

You dont understund that Nucleus of atoms expanding and recycling dark expanding pushing force which have example nature of expanding light.

Expanding light waves is dark for us, but we know, there is waves because we can register photons.

But almost all expanding light mass is in dark expanding waves.

Expanding lights interactive with eachother and get eachother expanding faster and faster. So expanding light moving faster and faster same way what matter and light expanding.


Jul 25, 2019
A falsifiable theory for the inside of a black hole would be one that produces answers that don't involve infinite while also describing and predicting physics outside of a black hole that can be tested. That would always be the preferred theory over one that gives answers that otherwise seem impossible.

In the end, sure it is likely we will never get a 100% certain answer about what can't be observed but you don't need to have one. Just a valid one suffices.

Jul 25, 2019
- ctd -

The difference lies in whether Guth is correct (physics has to attain Planck energies) or Linde is correct (it does not need happen). I agree with Linde because it makes sense of future expansion and avoid singularities, and that was how I come up with a naive model of a black hole that preserve GR (and more). As they say, I leave that as an exercise to the readers. (Partly because it is not peer reviewed published even if would stand up for quantification which is prior unlikely, partly because the model is too long for comments.) Just saying that some of the traditional maybe-give-us-a-theory-of-everything assumptions are as much on "fray at the edges" ground as GR.

Science defines 'theories' as being falsifiable.


No, that is philosophy - science asks for testing. But, good question. If the core BH is not Planck, it can be flat space for the same reason inflation is.

- tbctd -

Jul 25, 2019
So, Dark Expanding light waves interactive with eachother and get eachother expanding faster. Thats why expanding light moving faster and faster same way what matter and light expanding.

Explanation for

1. Bending light near star and galaxy

2. Cosmologys way redshifted light

3. Gravity redshifted light

So, there is no expanding space!

No curving space!

Space is infinity 3 D place which is nothing.


Jul 25, 2019
- ctd -

Then quantum gravity suffice everywhere, with GR the classical expectation [ http://www.schola...ue_2014a ]. Whether or not gravity really "bends" spacetime or it just looks that way in the classical approximation of the quantum theory then becomes a philosophical, untestable question too.

But how to test BH models? If not consistency suffice, and I don't think scientists will agree on conditions, I dunno. We can ask the same of Ghez, how will she test her "fray at the edges" claim?

Jul 25, 2019
Expanding Black stars are so density that expanding black stars emit expanding black light which dont interactive with expanding visible matter.

Expanding supermassive concentration emit expanding dark matter and galaxys born inside to outside.

When two supermassive concentration collide together, then lot of expanding dark matter expanding very fast and then born lot of new expanding stars and ofcourse new expanding matters.


Jul 25, 2019
A falsifiable theory for the inside of a black hole would be one that produces answers that don't involve infinite while also describing and predicting physics outside of a black hole that can be tested. That would always be the preferred theory over one that gives answers that otherwise seem impossible.


But how would a theory that predicts the inside also make new predictions outside? (I ask, since my new toy does not.) Ghez "fray at the edges" maybe-give-us-a-theory-of-everything assumption is such, it cannot be tested just like that.

Maybe there will be such a theory some day, but if not - what then?

Jul 25, 2019
But how to test BH models? If not consistency suffice, and I don't think scientists will agree on conditions, I dunno. We can ask the same of Ghez, how will she test her "fray at the edges" claim?
@torbjorn, seems to me like she did and it wasn't frayed. But maybe that's just me.

@Darth, I'd be very surprised if a quantum gravity theory didn't merely extend GRT rather than overturning it. I would say that minimally it needs to predict GRT. But who knows? We've only had a few sniffs at it so far. This could take decades or even centuries at the rate new math gets developed.

Jul 25, 2019
Miss Ghez says that 'this is the first of many tests of General Relativity". She seems a tad bit sceptical of GR, but favours it anyway. She mentions 'time' Which Einstein mistakenly thought to include in his GR equations, when perhaps it would have been wiser to use the symbol for Motion. Motion is far more relative to Space and is a reality, whereas 'time' is but a concept produced by the human Mind, and only fleeting, at that in spite of its daily use in everyday discourse.
Motion plus Gravity would be more consistent as the constituents of the alleged Black Holes.

SO-2 is affected by its closest passage near the BH, but such a wobbly orbit could be true of ANY CLOSE passage near a massive body.

Jul 25, 2019
To figure out the universe, one must first come up with a model of its constituents. I have found a model where elementary particles are made of spheres, that are like their own little universes made of many smaller particles approximately 10^60. The gravitational constant is derived from a theory of the universe made of spheres, made of much smaller spheres, until we get to a zero dimensional particle. Please see "Predicting the Gravitational Constant from the New Physics of a Rotating Universe"

Jul 25, 2019
To figure out the universe, one must first come up with a model of its constituents. I have found a model where elementary particles are made of spheres, that are like their own little universes made of many smaller particles approximately 10^60. The gravitational constant is derived from a theory of the universe made of spheres, made of much smaller spheres, until we get to a zero dimensional particle. Please see "Predicting the Gravitational Constant from the New Physics of a Rotating Universe"


LMAO

Jul 25, 2019
Beyond Relativity - By Andrea Ghez,

Einstein's right
At least for now
Said Ghez
A co-lead author of the research
We can absolutely rule out Newton's law of gravity
Our observations are consistent with Einstein's theory of general relativity
However, his theory is definitely showing vulnerability
It cannot fully explain gravity inside a black hole
At some point we will need to move beyond Einstein's theory
To a more comprehensive theory of gravity
That explains what a black hole is
Einstein's 1915 theory of general relativity
Holds that what we perceive as the force of gravity
Arises from the curvature of space and time
The scientist proposed
That objects such as the sun and the Earth
Change this geometry
Einstein's theory is the best description of how gravity works
Said Ghez
Whose UCLA-led team of astronomers
Has made direct measurements
Of the phenomenon near a supermassive black hole
Research Ghez, describes as extreme astrophysics!

Jul 25, 2019
If we believe that our World has started sometimes ago we are still in the position to decide which hypothesis, Lemaître's or Gamow's was closer to reality. There is an opinion that the problems in the standard cosmology could be solved by adjusting of details. Our suggestion is that we have to go back to the conceptions and use the observations accumulated since.
https://www.acade...osmology

Jul 25, 2019
Science defines 'theories' as being falsifiable.
No, that is philosophy - science asks for testing. But, good question. - tbctd -
"Testable" is more or less a synonym of "falsifiable" in the language of philosophy of science. Specifically, not philosophy in general - philosophy of science is something closer to "meta-science" than to "ordinary" philosophy.
If a hypothesis or conjecture can be tested then it can also be falsified (i.e. if the hypothesis is false then some observation or experiment can produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it).

Jul 25, 2019
I believe that Einstein was right in his correlation of time and space, but for the wrong reasons. TIME is the changed positon of matter, and I believe all particles are expanding (the microscopic continuation of Hubble's UNIVERSAL expansion) and that expansion is actually TIME, Gravity is but a side effect of this, and not a force! A Black Hole is formed when the expansion of its constituent particles causes its surface to expand at the velocity of light (which it cannot exceed in our universe) and the BH thus drops out of our TIME, i.e. the laws of physics which guide our path thru the chaos no longer apply. An experiment to verify the theory via the cause of motion of matter and the origin of momentum is detailed in "About Time" though it might be a bit expensive to perform.

Jul 25, 2019
Even Newton's laws are still valid for the envelope and degree of accuracy for which they were formed, which covers most of our practical purposes on Earth. The general relationship of mass to gravity still holds, doesn't it?

Einstein's conception of gravity helps us with more extreme cases and has been tested to very high consistency and extreme accuracy and precision, and is used in (as I recall) fine-tuning the GPS system and a number of space probe flight paths.

If we need something more to handle "the inside of Black Holes" (which some might argue are regions outside of the [knowable] universe), it will simply be another layer enriching our previous understandings.

Jul 25, 2019
Well, this is a very bad article !

The fact is that GR has once again flawlessly passed the test and should not be treated with such contempt.

It is one thing to have a comment section full of idiots, it is a whole different thing when an idiot write the article. This is a shame.

P.S.: Here is a better article to promote the same paper : https://www.space...ity.html

Jul 25, 2019
I don't recall anyone in mainstream science suggesting that GR was the be and end all (in macro terms) of theories. Indeed, wasn't it said in the early days of BH theory that our then current maths/physics breakdown inside a a BH? So, imho I don't think anyone is under any illusion regarding GR and considering how Prof. Einstein gave birth to the theory (pen & paper) he did a pretty good job. 'We can rule out Newton's law of gravity...' We don't use F =(Gm1m2)/r² anymore?

Jul 25, 2019
LOL, "Magnetism is perpendicular to the current!"


Jul 25, 2019
Stephen Hawking and I had quite a different outlook on the formation of the Super-Verse, but I like to think we respected each others perspectives.

This is mine ....
1 . The Singularity is a dimensionless space if you disregard time, it contains nothing, and is only time.
2. The 2 spaces in the Reality paper I wrote in 81 (G space and the 3d space) we call space grew from that dimensionless space .
3. Photons started forming.
4. As the weight of light increased, heavier particles (protons) started forming.
5. At this early stage of the Super-Verse, there was not enough Gravity/Weight to stabalise the proton shell structures with Time Dilation (Which is simply caused by spacial compression), so it started "Banging", i.e. protons structures collapse/explode back into photon structures.
6. Our Big Bang is something that happened a very very very long time after that.

Jul 25, 2019
So ...
This is my theory of 38 years ago...

Draw a scale on paper going down (i.e. Y axis) and the scale is in nC^3

Then draw the Electron and the Proton on their appropriate weight scale.
Then draw a skin line from the zero weight down around each particle and back to the 0 weight line.

(The Q.G.R. Might have better numbers for these scales but it explains it well enough,
Photons/EM fill the 1C^3 ~ 4C^3 weights
Electrons 5C^3~6C^3
And Protons 7C^3 ~ 10C^3
Neutrons 11C^3 and higher

Anything below the Proton equatorial boundary has a Time dilation high enough to prevent energy transfer.
The Heavier a particle is the higher it's time dilation boundary condition, so energy transfer is slower.
(I.E. The G-Zero weight boundary is light and the bottom of the G-Curve is heavy)

(C) 1981 Marcel Bernhard Eringa

Jul 25, 2019
** The Time Dilated Skin back to the Zero weight or "Gravity curve" is Magnetism theory. **

1. Magnetism is an exposed deeper weight particles Gravity curve.

2. Proton weights occlude these deeper curves in non-magnetic crystalline structures.
(I.E. Visible matter is proton weight or lighter and Dark matter is all the masses below proton weight)
3. Polarisation is caused by the total G-Zero skins weight differential.
(I.E. The G-Zero weight boundary is light and the bottom of the G-Curve is heavy and aligns to the prevailing Gravity field(s))

(C) 1981 Marcel Bernhard Eringa

Jul 25, 2019
There are 7 fundamental forces.
Also, light speed is not constant but has a half life. Its original speed was 147 times the current speed.

Jul 25, 2019
So, if ya's follow all that ....
1. There is no event horizon.
2. Photons will just go wizzing past the black hole.
3. Any shift in frequency is caused by the Proton and lighter masses.

So
i. Understanding a Black Hole's Gravity curve as it is expressed in our "3d" visible space will give us a much better understanding of the atomic and smaller expressions of gravity, hence allowing us to finally express the atomic "G Space" expression from an E8 "Reality" Crystal of the Q.G.R. into our observational and experimental spaces.

ii. So 1C^3 = one quantum gram.
iii. Figuring out the ratio of One Quantum Gram to actual Grams is beyond current computing decimal places.


Jul 25, 2019
The photons going past a black hole will, because of time dilation, only ever experience their speed as C but from our perspective they will travel almost instantly across the Gravity well.

Jul 25, 2019
I don't recall anyone in mainstream science suggesting that GR was the be and end all (in macro terms) of theories. Indeed, wasn't it said in the early days of BH theory that our then current maths/physics breakdown inside a a BH? So, imho I don't think anyone is under any illusion regarding GR and considering how Prof. Einstein gave birth to the theory (pen & paper) he did a pretty good job. 'We can rule out Newton's law of gravity...' We don't use F =(Gm1m2)/r² anymore?
I am not suggesting that GR is an untouchable, but so far it has not failed any test. So it is fraudulous to say that it is questionable.

A good analogy would be to say: Mathematics is questionable because of the incompleteness theorem, but 2+2=4 stands for now.

Jul 25, 2019
To figure out the universe, one must first come up with a model of its constituents. I have found a model where elementary particles are made of spheres, that are like their own little universes made of many smaller particles approximately 10^60. The gravitational constant is derived from a theory of the universe made of spheres, made of much smaller spheres, until we get to a zero dimensional particle. Please see "Predicting the Gravitational Constant from the New Physics of a Rotating Universe"
Why ridicule? If you are so intelligent. Study this before making snap judgements. Einstein said that the person who figures out the theory of everything will not do it because they are super smart, but super creative.

LMAO

Jul 25, 2019
To figure out the universe, one must first come up with a model of its constituents. I have found a model where elementary particles are made of spheres, that are like their own little universes made of many smaller particles approximately 10^60. The gravitational constant is derived from a theory of the universe made of spheres, made of much smaller spheres, until we get to a zero dimensional particle. Please see "Predicting the Gravitational Constant from the New Physics of a Rotating Universe"
What did Einstein say, "The only thing that interferes with my learning, is my education!"

LMAO

Jul 26, 2019
May be the thing which can violate the theory is a violation of universal constant? For example Archimedes law (Newtonian physics?) about water displacement applies until you provide enough force to squeeze water molecules so it's solid material and not liquid.

Jul 26, 2019
May be the thing which can violate the theory is a violation of universal constant? For example Archimedes law (Newtonian physics?) about water displacement applies until you provide enough force to squeeze water molecules so it's solid material and not liquid.

Don't need to squeeze it. Just lower the temperature.

Jul 26, 2019
uhhmm, wouldn't squeezing water molecules together be adding energy?
instead of the water molecules phasing into ice
the added energy would result in the water molecules phasing into vapor?

Jul 26, 2019
UH HUH this is rich, more arm waving inanity.
Be patient everyone there will be contradictions of this too forthcoming.
We can't count the number of challenges to GR and yet so far nothing has been verifiable by experiment or observation. Only GR so far!


Jul 26, 2019
GR is the truth for now until a bigger circle is drawn. The whole idea of merging quantum theory with GR to explain things happening inside a black hole sounds far from being novel and unique.

A new idea will be something that no one has ever thought before. A new kind of physics different from GR and QT, is needed.

Jul 26, 2019
What is it with Einstein that brings out all the amateur science nuts with their "theories"? It does not happen in Quantum Mechanics, which makes far more outrageous claims as to the nature of reality.

Jul 26, 2019
Beyond Relativity - By Andrea Ghez

Andrea Ghez
We can absolutely rule out Newton's law of gravity
At some point we will need to move beyond Einstein's theory

REALY
This formula describing this BLACKHOLE
Or more precisely
This BLACKHOLE's very definition - its event-horizon, its light-radius
For its event-horizon is its light-radius, its escape-velocity - the speed of light
For the formula to describe a blackholes light-radius equals R = 2GM/C²
R = metres
G = the gravitational constant that ISAAC NEWTON used 330 years go
M = mass, the very same mass ISAAC NEWTON used 330 years ago
C = the escape velocity V, for C and V are measured in m/s as they are velocity - the escape-velocity
This escape-velocity of the planet using ISAAC NEWTON'S law's and mathematics of gravity
R = 2GM/C² is straight out of ISAAC NEWTON'S laws of gravity

p.s. if Andrea Ghez has overlooked a minor point, it was ISAAC NEWTON who discovered and defined gravity as dear old Albert COPIED Isaac's laws of gravity

Jul 26, 2019
The reference in the article to photonsd near the edge of a black hole having to do "extra work", of their wavelength depending on "how much energy the photons expend to escape the black hole" invokes what was long considered discounted, the "tired light" theory. Supposedly, photons leaving a source do not "expend energy"! They're not rocket ships shooting out exhaust! They are moving entities that literally cannot slow down. A photon goes at the speed of light or it doesn't move at all. Leaving a source, they don't use up energy, their wavelength and frequency simultaneously supposedly change, but the product of the two , the energy, remains constant. "Tired light" was suggested to explain the reddening of light from some sources, saying distant sources were redder not from Doppler shifting but from something that made them lose energy as they moved.

Jul 26, 2019
@julianpenrod

1- Concerning "Tired light", the answer is easy: In space, photons are not subjected to a strong unidirectional gravitational field.

2- There are experiments that measured the influence of a gravitational field on photons and this one was the latest of those. https://physics.a...1.231102

Here you will find a list of the other experiments on gravitational redshift http://adsabs.har...20..285B

Jul 26, 2019
It can be said that TechnoCreed seems not really to have read my comment or to understand accepted theory about light. Light does not "do work" to escape any gravitational field. It starts out at the speed of light and end at the speed of light. The observed frequency and wavelength do not change, which means the energy contained did not change, which means, essentially, it did not work. A photon is constant. To change any facet of its makeup is for the photon to cease to exist and another photon with the new qualities to take its place. Photons do not lose energy. A photon is not a rocket that loses fuel, whose power system wears down. Photons do not change under any circumstance.

Jul 26, 2019
@julianpindick hates redshift.

Jul 26, 2019
tell you what granny
hold a bowling ball up to your chest
over your bare toes
release...

the volume of your screams will serve as a measurement indicative of how exactly
"We can absolutely rule out Newton's law of gravity"

would this experiment indicate self-delusion or personal stupidity?

"We stand on the shoulders of Giants!"

so that would leave all of you wooloons commenting barely qualified for troll status?

sorry, no certificate
but, here's your sign!

do i need yo spell "EXIT" for you?

Jul 26, 2019
Over your bare toes - By R r wills

Tell you what granny
Hold a bowling ball up to your chest
Over your bare toes
Release...
The volume of your screams
Will serve as a measurement
Indicative of how exactly
"We can absolutely rule out Newton's law of gravity"
Would this experiment indicate self-delusion or personal stupidity?
"We stand on the shoulders of Giants!"
So that would leave
All of you wooloons
Commenting barely qualified for troll status?
Sorry, no certificate
But, here's your sign!
Do i need yo spell "EXIT" for you?

Jul 26, 2019
Over your bare toes

Rrwillsj
This quiet reflection
Their curative powers
Your babbling brook
As you keep this poetic flow
Your bridge, your quiet reflection
Is there, your personal haven
Whenever, you're babbling brook
Brings forth this poetic flow

Jul 26, 2019
A photon is constant

Julianpenrod:
Light does no "do work"
To escape any gravitational field
It starts out at the speed of light
And ends at the speed of light
The observed frequency and wavelength do not change
Which means?
The energy contained did not change
Which means?
Essentially, it did no work
A photon is constant
To change any facet of its makeup
Is for the photon to cease to exist
And another photon
With the new qualities to take its place
Photons do not lose energy
A photon is not a rocket that loses fuel
Whose power system wears down?
Photons do not change under any circumstance

Jul 26, 2019
The reference in the article to photons near the edge of a black hole having to do "extra work", of their wavelength depending on "how much energy the photons expend to escape the black hole" invokes what was long considered discounted, the "tired light" theory. Supposedly, photons leaving a source do not "expend energy"! They're not rocket ships shooting out exhaust! They are moving entities that literally cannot slow down. A photon goes at the speed of light or it doesn't move at all.Leaving a source, they don't use up energy, their wavelength and frequency simultaneously supposedly change, but the product of the two , the energy, remains constant. "Tired light" was suggested to explain the reddening of light from some sources, saying distant sources were redder not from Doppler shifting but from something that made them lose energy as they moved.
Dead on the money, everything. Fritz Zwicky concocted TIRED LIGHT, one of the icons of present day Pop-Cosmology.

Jul 26, 2019
@julianpindick hates redshift.
.....and schneibo, you love Fritz Zwicky & his TIRED LIGHT theory that got him into so much trouble with Einstein.

Jul 26, 2019
Interesting

Light does no "do work"
To escape any gravitational field
It starts out at the speed of light
And ends at the speed of light
The observed frequency and wavelength does not change

As photons are perceived to be massless
Under the acceleration of gravity no work has been done
As to the observed frequency and wavelength
As this photon is massless
How is gravity lengthening this wave length?
If gravities acceleration has no effect on this massless photon

Foreth as this photons velocity remains constant
Where is this energy, if gravity lengthens this photon wavelength

For, Julianpenrod has an interesting point

Jul 26, 2019
How is gravity lengthening this wave length?
If gravities acceleration has no effect on this massless photon
....it's because an EM Wave also has a field of gravity.

When one gravity field senses the presence of another gravity there is a mutual attraction. When MASS is transformed gravity is not lost to the system, it is transferred to the EM Wave upon transformation. It's the same in reverse, when an EM Photon Wave is transformed to Mass there will be added gravity to the system which absorbed the photon to create new mass.

Jul 26, 2019
How is gravity lengthening this photons wave length?

Benni, Because an EM Wave also has a field of gravity.

Gravitational fields senses the presence of other gravitational fields for there is a mutual attraction
Energy is proportional to mass
Gravity is proportional to mass
Which implies gravity is proportional to energy
Where this energy of mass is this electromagnetic wave of this photon
Which
Comes full circle
Because an EM Wave also has a field of gravity

This subtle point
When the moon attracts the earth
Conversely
The earth attracts the moon
In all reality it is the moons gravity attracting the earth's gravity

p.s. this is the first time there's been mention of combining gravity, mass and electromagnetic energy in a unified theory

Jul 26, 2019
Dead on the money, everything. Fritz Zwicky concocted TIRED LIGHT, one of the icons of present day Pop-Cosmology.


And nobody, other than cranks, is still pushing tired light nonsense. Certainly not the scientists in this article. I think you don't understand what you are talking about. Again. Stick to cleaning toilets.

Jul 26, 2019

When one gravity field senses the presence of another gravity there is a mutual attraction. When MASS is transformed gravity is not lost to the system, it is transferred to the EM Wave upon transformation. It's the same in reverse, when an EM Photon Wave is transformed to Mass there will be added gravity to the system which absorbed the photon to create new mass.


Lol. A janitor's take on things he doesn't understand!

Jul 26, 2019
How is gravity lengthening this wave length?
If gravities acceleration has no effect on this massless photon
....it's because an EM Wave also has a field of gravity.

When one gravity field senses the presence of another gravity there is a mutual attraction. When MASS is transformed gravity is not lost to the system, it is transferred to the EM Wave upon transformation. It's the same in reverse, when an EM Photon Wave is transformed to Mass there will be added gravity to the system which absorbed the photon to create new mass.

So... you're positing that the collective gravity of EM given off by the collective mass of our quasi-spherical, bound "Universe" is now a "halo" of gravity, perhaps even being responsible for our expanding "Universe"?
Provocative...

Jul 26, 2019
May be the thing which can violate the theory is a violation of universal constant? For example Archimedes law (Newtonian physics?) about water displacement applies until you provide enough force to squeeze water molecules so it's solid material and not liquid.

Don't need to squeeze it. Just lower the temperature.
says Whyde

That's telling 'em.
:)

Jul 26, 2019
So... you're positing that the collective gravity of EM given off by the collective mass of our quasi-spherical, bound "Universe" is now a "halo" of gravity, perhaps even being responsible for our expanding "Universe"?
........you're the one making the suggestion, don't give Benni credit for things YOU write.

Jul 26, 2019

When one gravity field senses the presence of another gravity there is a mutual attraction. When MASS is transformed gravity is not lost to the system, it is transferred to the EM Wave upon transformation. It's the same in reverse, when an EM Photon Wave is transformed to Mass there will be added gravity to the system which absorbed the photon to create new mass.


Lol. A janitor's take on things he doesn't understand!
says Castrovagina

You seem bitter, jonesy. Have you been fired from your own janitorial job for forgetting to clean the toilets?
Actually, Benni is correct. Massless Photons are unencumbered by the effects of Gravity and loss of Energy as is probably true of the entire populations of the Quantum Universe. It is the Photon that is the 'messenger', bearing information at the speed of c to all sections of the Universe. All Particles exchange Energies, losing and gaining Mass while merging; but they all have Gravity in common with each other.

Jul 26, 2019
How is gravity lengthening this wave length?
If gravities acceleration has no effect on this massless photon
....it's because an EM Wave also has a field of gravity.

When one gravity field senses the presence of another gravity there is a mutual attraction. When MASS is transformed gravity is not lost to the system, it is transferred to the EM Wave upon transformation. It's the same in reverse, when an EM Photon Wave is transformed to Mass there will be added gravity to the system which absorbed the photon to create new mass.

So... you're positing that the collective gravity of EM given off by the collective mass of our quasi-spherical, bound "Universe" is now a "halo" of gravity, perhaps even being responsible for our expanding "Universe"?
Provocative...
says Whyde

That is exactly the cause of universal expansion. The large communities of Matter that are gathered fairly tightly together and their common aggregation of Gravity....
-contd-

Jul 26, 2019
You seem bitter, jonesy. Have you been fired from your own janitorial job for forgetting to clean the toilets?
Actually, Benni is correct. Massless Photons are unencumbered by the effects of Gravity and loss of Energy as is probably true of the entire populations of the Quantum Universe. It is the Photon that is the 'messenger', bearing information at the speed of c to all sections of the Universe. All Particles exchange Energies, losing and gaining Mass while merging; but they all have Gravity in common with each other.


Wrong. As usual. Give up you clueless clown.

Jul 26, 2019
-contd-
@Whyde
....their common aggregation of Gravity beckons to other similarly tightly packed galactic clusters to follow the first-in-line. Almost similar to a 'conveyer-belt' progression.
I have begun to conjecture that there is a very distant 'object' that may be the biggest of ALL Black Holes at the end of the Universe that is drawing ALL Matter/Energy to it. In a few TRILLIONS of Earth years, that 'object' will have consumed every bit of Mass/Energies that exist in the Universe. And that after it has consumed all of it, the object will explode.

Jul 26, 2019
You seem bitter, jonesy. Have you been fired from your own janitorial job for forgetting to clean the toilets?
Actually, Benni is correct. Massless Photons are unencumbered by the effects of Gravity and loss of Energy as is probably true of the entire populations of the Quantum Universe. It is the Photon that is the 'messenger', bearing information at the speed of c to all sections of the Universe. All Particles exchange Energies, losing and gaining Mass while merging; but they all have Gravity in common with each other.


Wrong. As usual. Give up you clueless clown.
says the bitter clinger, Castrati

Where am I wrong, and WHY am I wrong? Explain it, you knave.

Jul 26, 2019
Where am I wrong, and WHY am I wrong? Explain it, you knave.


All of it, you uneducated loon. That is what the article is telling you. Photons are affected by gravity. It is called gravitational redshift. It was first proven in the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959. And many times since. The velocity of the photon is not affected - it's frequency (i.e. wavelength) is. First year undergrad stuff. Which you'd know had you ever got beyond primary school science.

Jul 26, 2019
The ratio of radius of two bodies orbiting different mass objects in Newtonian gravity is (R1/R2)=(M1/M2)^1/2*(T1/T2)^2/3 where M is the central mass and T is the orbital period. So with a mass of 4 million sol and a 16 year period this star orbits at about 1000AU or 0.015 light years or 25 times the distance from the Sun to Pluto. Closer than the Oort Cloud by solar standards. An object orbiting our own Sun at that distance would have a period of 1000^3/2=36.6k years.

Jul 26, 2019
No. Photons are not affected by gravitational redshift. Redshifts and blueshift are indications of the motions of Mass, not of massless Photons. It could only occur when and if the Photon transforms into Mass, where it is subjected to Gravity. They can experiment till doomsday. It cannot be changed.

Jul 26, 2019
No. Photons are not affected by gravitational redshift. Redshifts and blueshift are indications of the motions of Mass, not of massless Photons. It could only occur when and if the Photon transforms into Mass, where it is subjected to Gravity. They can experiment till doomsday. It cannot be changed.


Been observed. Been shown experimentally. So quit making crap up about things that you have no comprehension of.

Jul 26, 2019
No. Photons are not affected by gravitational redshift. Redshifts and blueshift are indications of the motions of Mass, not of massless Photons. It could only occur when and if the Photon transforms into Mass, where it is subjected to Gravity. They can experiment till doomsday. It cannot be changed.


Been observed. Been shown experimentally. So quit making crap up about things that you have no comprehension of.


I have far better comprehension of it than you do. Their experiments were grossly flawed, with the goal of proving GR. Each Photon travels at c and cannot slow down or stop. Gravitational Blueshift and redshift are dependent on the slowing or speeding up of Mass. Not of Photons.

Jul 26, 2019
On Earth it is called 'Doppler Shift' and involves Noise. Which also depends on the velocity of Mass. In the Cosmos, both shifts are caused/quantified by a moving Mass, whether slowing or speeding. Photons proceed at a steady pace/speed, therefore there is no slowing or speeding up; therefore there is no blue or red shift.

Jul 26, 2019
-contd-
@Whyde
....their common aggregation of Gravity beckons to other similarly tightly packed galactic clusters to follow the first-in-line. Almost similar to a 'conveyer-belt' progression.
I have begun to conjecture that there is a very distant 'object' that may be the biggest of ALL Black Holes at the end of the Universe that is drawing ALL Matter/Energy to it. In a few TRILLIONS of Earth years, that 'object' will have consumed every bit of Mass/Energies that exist in the Universe. And that after it has consumed all of it, the object will explode.
What then? A New "Big Bang"?

Jul 26, 2019
-contd-
@Whyde
....their common aggregation of Gravity beckons to other similarly tightly packed galactic clusters to follow the first-in-line. Almost similar to a 'conveyer-belt' progression.
I have begun to conjecture that there is a very distant 'object' that may be the biggest of ALL Black Holes at the end of the Universe that is drawing ALL Matter/Energy to it. In a few TRILLIONS of Earth years, that 'object' will have consumed every bit of Mass/Energies that exist in the Universe. And that after it has consumed all of it, the object will explode.
What then? A New "Big Bang"?
says Whyde

I would give you a metaphysical answer to that, but I know that you being an atheist, would not appreciate it.
:)

Jul 26, 2019
I have far better comprehension of it than you do. Their experiments were grossly flawed, with the goal of proving GR. Each Photon travels at c and cannot slow down or stop. Gravitational Blueshift and redshift are dependent on the slowing or speeding up of Mass. Not of Photons.


Wrong. As proven. And the photons are not being slowed or accelerated you ignorant clown. I already told you that, dumbo. And nobody is saying the experiments are observations are flawed. So sod off and spam your ignorance elsewhere, you clueless poser.

Jul 26, 2019
Gravitational fields senses the presence of other gravitational fields for there is a mutual attraction
Energy is proportional to mass
Gravity is proportional to mass
Which implies gravity is proportional to energy
Where this energy of mass is this electromagnetic wave of this photon
Which
Comes full circle
Because an EM Wave also has a field of gravity
......granDy, I'm starting to be jealous that your side-clarifications are getting to be better than MY explanations. Keep it coming young man, now I'm goading you.

Jul 26, 2019
On Earth it is called 'Doppler Shift' and involves Noise. Which also depends on the velocity of Mass. In the Cosmos, both shifts are caused/quantified by a moving Mass, whether slowing or speeding. Photons proceed at a steady pace/speed, therefore there is no slowing or speeding up; therefore there is no blue or red shift.


Oh dear! The stupid, it hurts! Lol. Go away you utter moron.

Jul 26, 2019
I have far better comprehension of it than you do. Their experiments were grossly flawed, with the goal of proving GR. Each Photon travels at c and cannot slow down or stop. Gravitational Blueshift and redshift are dependent on the slowing or speeding up of Mass. Not of Photons.


Wrong. As proven. And the photons are not being slowed or accelerated you ignorant clown. I already told you that, dumbo. And nobody is saying the experiments are observations are flawed. So sod off and spam your ignorance elsewhere, you clueless poser.
says the mistaken for smart, Castrato

YOU are wrong, as I am proving all the while. I already said that Photons cannot be slowed or speeded up. You are repeating what I have said in my comments above, pretending that you were the origination of the concept.
Why don't YOU go somewhere else, you ignorant porker. You have no sense of Logic or Reason, which is why YOU believe that Photons can have red and blue shifts.

Jul 26, 2019

Why don't YOU go somewhere else, you ignorant porker. You have no sense of Logic or Reason, which is why YOU believe that Photons can have red and blue shifts.


They do have red and blue shifts, you ignorant bloody clown. As proven. Nobody is claiming otherwise.

Jul 26, 2019
Sez Egg:

Actually, Benni is correct. Massless Photons are unencumbered by the effects of Gravity and loss of Energy as is probably true of the entire populations of the Quantum Universe. It is the Photon that is the 'messenger', bearing information at the speed of c to all sections of the Universe. All Particles exchange Energies, losing and gaining Mass while merging; but they all have Gravity in common with each other.
.........and the thing here is the fact that there is no way to explain GRAVITY by the existence of anything other than MASS, yet an EM Wave has no mass, but with it's wave it carries gravity which must also be a wave or it couldn't travel with an EM Wave at exactly the same speed, and yet have no effect that changes ANYTHING about the wavelength characteristic of the EM Wave.


Jul 26, 2019

Why don't YOU go somewhere else, you ignorant porker. You have no sense of Logic or Reason, which is why YOU believe that Photons can have red and blue shifts.


They do have red and blue shifts, you ignorant bloody clown. As proven. Nobody is claiming otherwise.


Wrong again. You keep spouting the errors made by foolish scientists. Photons cannot be red or blue shifted, because they have ONLY ONE SPEED. which is the speed of Light. Since they only have ONE SPEED, there is no way that they would qualify for a red or blue shift change of speed.
Go read some more of your error filled Physics booklets and talk to your psychiatrist about it. Maybe HE can explain the REAL PHYSICS to you.

Jul 26, 2019

Why don't YOU go somewhere else, you ignorant porker. You have no sense of Logic or Reason, which is why YOU believe that Photons can have red and blue shifts.


They do have red and blue shifts, you ignorant bloody clown. As proven. Nobody is claiming otherwise.


Wrong again. You keep spouting the errors made by foolish scientists. Photons cannot be red or blue shifted, because they have ONLY ONE SPEED. which is the speed of Light. Since they only have ONE SPEED, there is no way that they would qualify for a red or blue shift change of speed.
Go read some more of your error filled Physics booklets and talk to your psychiatrist about it. Maybe HE can explain the REAL PHYSICS to you.


Jesus, what an idiot. You mean you didn't cover this in high school, you ignorant tosser? Seriously, you are extremely stupid. Why do you even comment on these things? Mental illness? It's all I can think of!

Jul 26, 2019
.........and the thing here is the fact that there is no way to explain GRAVITY by the existence of anything other than MASS

In General Relativity the source of the gravitational field is the Stress-Energy tensor.
"is a tensor [...] that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime, generalizing the stress tensor of Newtonian physics. It is an attribute of matter, radiation, and non-gravitational force fields. The stress–energy tensor is the source of the gravitational field in the Einstein field equations of general relativity, just as mass density is the source of such a field in Newtonian gravity." You should read up on it.

Jul 26, 2019
In the Cosmos, Mass at velocity is explained to have either a red or a blueshift if that Mass is moving away from, or moving toward an observer. Photons can only travel at c in ONE direction, unless deflected by Mass, where it resumes its velocity of c in its new trajectory. If YOU can't understand that concept, then there is something wrong with you, Castrovagina. Or you can't understand easy terms.

Jul 26, 2019
.........and the thing here is the fact that there is no way to explain GRAVITY by the existence of anything other than MASS

In General Relativity the source of the gravitational field is the Stress-Energy tensor.
"is a tensor [...] that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime, generalizing the stress tensor of Newtonian physics. It is an attribute of matter, radiation, and non-gravitational force fields. The stress–energy tensor is the source of the gravitational field in the Einstein field equations of general relativity, just as mass density is the source of such a field in Newtonian gravity." You should read up on it.

There is no such thing as 'Spacetime". The term 'time' is only a concept invented by the human mind. Space is real. Time is not real.

Jul 26, 2019
In the Cosmos, Mass at velocity is explained to have either a red or a blueshift if that Mass is moving away from, or moving toward an observer. Photons can only travel at c in ONE direction, unless deflected by Mass, where it resumes its velocity of c in its new trajectory. If YOU can't understand that concept, then there is something wrong with you, Castrovagina. Or you can't understand easy terms.


Wrong. And nobody is claiming I'm wrong, and nobody is claiming your pitiful understanding of science is right. You are an idiot.

Jul 26, 2019
Sez Egg:

Actually, Benni is correct. Massless Photons are unencumbered by the effects of Gravity and loss of Energy as is probably true of the entire populations of the Quantum Universe. It is the Photon that is the 'messenger', bearing information at the speed of c to all sections of the Universe. All Particles exchange Energies, losing and gaining Mass while merging; but they all have Gravity in common with each other.
.........and the thing here is the fact that there is no way to explain GRAVITY by the existence of anything other than MASS, yet an EM Wave has no mass, but with it's wave it carries gravity which must also be a wave or it couldn't travel with an EM Wave at exactly the same speed, and yet have no effect that changes ANYTHING about the wavelength characteristic of the EM Wave.
says Benni

I am uncertain about EM wave. If it has no Mass, then it can't carry Gravity, which would hold it back from attaining c. It may change into a grav wave.

Jul 26, 2019
There is no such thing as 'Spacetime". The term 'time' is only a concept invented by the human mind. Space is real. Time is not real.


Wrong. And nobody is claiming anything so idiotic. If they were, you would link to it.

Jul 26, 2019
Photons can only travel at c in ONE direction
Wrong. All observers see all photons moving at the speed of light no matter what direction they come from.

Are we done here?

Jul 26, 2019
I am uncertain about EM wave. If it has no Mass, then it can't carry Gravity, which would hold it back from attaining c. It may change into a grav wave.


Hahahahahahahaha! Christ, the lunatics have taken over the asylum! Complete morons, with the combined IQ of a trilobite, are telling us all about stuff that they have zero comprehension of! Unreal. And sad. You should all be in an institution. The type that comes with padded cells.

Jul 26, 2019
Photons cannot be red or blue shifted, because they have ONLY ONE SPEED. which is the speed of Light. Since they only have ONE SPEED, there is no way that they would qualify for a red or blue shift change of speed.


> Egg: Red & blue shift is about the wavelength of the EM Wave, not it's speed. I think ALMOST everybody agrees an Em Wave that is frequency shifted never changes speed, all we're doing is trying to figure out how gravity affects the wavelength in such a physical manner that this can happen.

EM Wavelength corresponds to the energy content of the Wave in question. What we don't know is why gravity can sort of suck energy out of an EM Wave with the effect of lengthening it. If gravity can do this, where does that sucked out energy go? It must be somehow absorbed by the inherent gravity field of the EM Wave & is returned to the EM Wave from it's inherent gravity after losing contact with the more intense gravity that commenced the process in the first place.

Jul 26, 2019
In the Cosmos, Mass at velocity is explained to have either a red or a blueshift if that Mass is moving away from, or moving toward an observer. Photons can only travel at c in ONE direction, unless deflected by Mass, where it resumes its velocity of c in its new trajectory. If YOU can't understand that concept, then there is something wrong with you, Castrovagina. Or you can't understand easy terms.


Wrong. And nobody is claiming I'm wrong, and nobody is claiming your pitiful understanding of science is right. You are an idiot.


And YOU are a fat porker. OF COURSE YOU'RE WRONG. You're ALWAYS wrong, but you refuse to admit that you're wrong because it would mean that that part of your Physics books is also wrong.
Now it is settled. What I said above about Photons not being quantified by the redshift and blueshift mania is CORRECT. As I've said, Photons travel at c. What makes you think that Photons are going to move slow or faster for red or blue shifts to catchup?

Jul 26, 2019
Photons can only travel at c in ONE direction
Wrong. All observers see all photons moving at the speed of light no matter what direction they come from.

Are we done here?
says Schneib

You're referring to ALL Photons, where only ONE PHOTON was being referred to in my discussion with the horse's arse.

WHY do you keep saying, are we done here. Is Physorg going to close shop? Do you realise how stupid you sound?

Jul 26, 2019


And YOU are a fat porker. OF COURSE YOU'RE WRONG. You're ALWAYS wrong, but you refuse to admit that you're wrong because it would mean that that part of your Physics books is also wrong.
Now it is settled. What I said above about Photons not being quantified by the redshift and blueshift mania is CORRECT. As I've said, Photons travel at c. What makes you think that Photons are going to move slow or faster for red or blue shifts to catchup?


How many times, you thick idiot? It is nothing to do with the speed changing. Are you dense? The frequency changes. This is observed. It is confirmed. It is not up for debate. Especially by uneducated retards like you.

Jul 26, 2019
Photons cannot be red or blue shifted, because they have ONLY ONE SPEED. which is the speed of Light. Since they only have ONE SPEED, there is no way that they would qualify for a red or blue shift change of speed.


> Egg: Red & blue shift is about the wavelength of the EM Wave, not it's speed. I think ALMOST everybody agrees an Em Wave that is frequency shifted never changes speed, all we're doing is trying to figure out how gravity affects the wavelength in such a physical manner that this can happen.

EM Wavelength corresponds to the energy content of the Wave in question. What we don't know is why gravity can sort of suck energy out of an EM Wave with the effect of lengthening it. If gravity can do this, where does that sucked out energy go?


Not sure, Benni. But that energy might be spread out in the form of Mass or Matter. Matter and Energy are interchangeable, going back and forth from one form into the other. The Energy may have transformed into Mass.

Jul 26, 2019
Not sure, Benni. But that energy might be spread out in the form of Mass or Matter. Matter and Energy are interchangeable, going back and forth from one form into the other. The Energy may have transformed into Mass.


Lol. Give up, you imbecile.

Jul 26, 2019


And YOU are a fat porker. OF COURSE YOU'RE WRONG. You're ALWAYS wrong, but you refuse to admit that you're wrong because it would mean that that part of your Physics books is also wrong.
Now it is settled. What I said above about Photons not being quantified by the redshift and blueshift mania is CORRECT. As I've said, Photons travel at c. What makes you think that Photons are going to move slow or faster for red or blue shifts to catchup?


How many times, you thick idiot? It is nothing to do with the speed changing. Are you dense? The frequency changes. This is observed. It is confirmed. It is not up for debate. Especially by uneducated retards like you.


Frequency changes in Photons do not alter the overall conditions of the Photons at c. Otherwise, the speed of the Photon would also be affected. It is observed and confirmed, and it is wrong. if it were able to change, that would mean that the frequency could drag the Photon to a slower velocity

Jul 26, 2019
Frequency changes in Photons do not alter the overall conditions of the Photons at c. Otherwise, the speed of the Photon would also be affected. It is observed and confirmed, and it is wrong. if it were able to change, that would mean that the frequency could drag the Photon to a slower velocity


Never studied physics, have you (rhetorical)? So why do you insist on continually making a tit of yourself by commenting on it? Your grasp of the subject is well below high school level. Just find something that you are good at, stick to that, and leave science alone, you clown.

https://www.ourun...ueshift/

Jul 26, 2019
Frequency changes in Photons do not alter the overall conditions of the Photons at c. Otherwise, the speed of the Photon would also be affected. It is observed and confirmed, and it is wrong. if it were able to change, that would mean that the frequency could drag the Photon to a slower velocity


Never studied physics, have you (rhetorical)? So why do you insist on continually making a tit of yourself by commenting on it? Your grasp of the subject is well below high school level. Just find something that you are good at, stick to that, and leave science alone, you clown.


Then why don't you explain it to me. Or are you now going to tell me to look it up in Wiki?

Jul 26, 2019
Then why don't you explain it to me. Or are you now going to tell me to look it up in Wiki?


Go get an education. Pick up a high school physics textbook. Then move on to undergrad level textbooks. You are never going to understand anything with a primary school level of knowledge of the subject.

Jul 26, 2019
Then why don't you explain it to me. Or are you now going to tell me to look it up in Wiki?


Go get an education. Pick up a high school physics textbook. Then move on to undergrad level textbooks. You are never going to understand anything with a primary school level of knowledge of the subject.


LOL That is your stock answer, to pick up a textbook. But you don't feel like explaining your stance on the matter, but directing me to read a book.
Now why don't you be a good little fat porker and explain what you were talking about, re the frequency of a Photon which would cause it to exhibit a red or blue shift.

Jul 26, 2019

LOL That is your stock answer, to pick up a textbook. But you don't feel like explaining your stance on the matter, but directing me to read a book.
Now why don't you be a good little fat porker and explain what you were talking about, re the frequency of a Photon which would cause it to exhibit a red or blue shift.


Piss off, you ignorant cretin. That is what textbooks are for, dickhead. So that clueless wretches like you can educate yourselves. And it is not what I am talking about. It is observed, accepted science. Nobody is questioning it. If you think I am going to attempt to educate an imbecile like you, on a comments section, with a 1000 character limit, you have got another think coming. Educate yourself, or take a hike, you moron.

Jul 26, 2019
There is no such thing as 'Spacetime". The term 'time' is only a concept invented by the human mind. Space is real. Time is not real.


Wrong. And nobody is claiming anything so idiotic. If they were, you would link to it.
says the horse's arse

I AM claiming it and there is nothing idiotic about the nonexistence of 'time'. You have read my many comments on its nonexistence and the reasons why. But you persist in the pretense that 'time' is something real, instead of being a mere fabrication of Einstein's confused Mind.
Do tell us what 'time' is made of, CastroV

Jul 26, 2019

LOL That is your stock answer, to pick up a textbook. But you don't feel like explaining your stance on the matter, but directing me to read a book.
Now why don't you be a good little fat porker and explain what you were talking about, re the frequency of a Photon which would cause it to exhibit a red or blue shift.


Piss off, you ignorant cretin. That is what textbooks are for, dickhead. So that clueless wretches like you can educate yourselves. And it is not what I am talking about. It is observed, accepted science. Nobody is questioning it. If you think I am going to attempt to educate an imbecile like you, on a comments section, with a 1000 character limit, you have got another think coming. Educate yourself, or take a hike, you moron.
says the fat pig's arse

Then use that 1000 character limit in a cogent manner to explain the gist of it.

Jul 26, 2019
I AM claiming it and there is nothing idiotic about the nonexistence of 'time'. You have read my many comments on its nonexistence and the reasons why. But you persist in the pretense that 'time' is something real, instead of being a mere fabrication of Einstein's confused Mind.
Do tell us what 'time' is made of, CastroV


Errr, no. I have seen the comments of an uneducated retard with no understanding of the subject. Nobody sane is claiming any such thing. Whatever crap you believe has nothing to do with science, thicko.

Jul 26, 2019
Then use that 1000 character limit in a cogent manner to explain the gist of it.


Sod off. You are too thick to teach. Here is a start for 15-16 year olds in the UK. Therefore it will be too complicated for you. Shall I try to find a primary school version?

https://www.educa...d-shift/

Jul 26, 2019
In the Cosmos, Mass at velocity is explained to have either a red or a blueshift if that Mass is moving away from, or moving toward an observer.

Technically it's the light from that "mass" that shifts blue or red. It's shift is also determined by the initial energy of that photon. Gravitational redshift is when a photon encounters a lesser gravitational field (ie-space) for a particular duration.
Photons can only travel at c in ONE direction,

I think you mean "in a straight line".
unless deflected by Mass,

a higher gravitational field...
where it resumes its velocity of c in its new trajectory.

You seem to be saying it's being absorbed and then re-emitting with some sort of time delay. It's called refraction.
(and I'm still waiting to hear from you what space is made of...)

Jul 26, 2019
Not sure, Benni. But that energy might be spread out in the form of Mass or Matter. Matter and Energy are interchangeable, going back and forth from one form into the other. The Energy may have transformed into Mass.
........for sure that energy went somewhere & came back just as suddenly as it disappeared.

The answer is tied up in the co-mingling gravity fields of the EM Wave & a higher mass gravitating body causing wave shifting when the wave enters/exits the influence of a higher mass body. The two gravity fields are attracted to one another as must be the case because there is no mass within the EM Wave for mass to be attracted to mass. In this case the more intense gravity field of a body links itself to the weaker field of the EM Wave causing lengthening or contraction of it's gravity wave, this in turn puts the squeeze on the EM Wave to lengthen or contract.

Jul 26, 2019
In the Cosmos, Mass at velocity is explained to have either a red or a blueshift if that Mass is moving away from, or moving toward an observer.

Technically it's the light from that "mass" that shifts blue or red. It's shift is also determined by the initial energy of that photon. Gravitational redshift is when a photon encounters a lesser gravitational field (ie-space) for a particular duration.
Photons can only travel at c in ONE direction,

I think you mean "in a straight line".
unless deflected by Mass,

a higher gravitational field...
where it resumes its velocity of c in its new trajectory.

You seem to be saying it's being absorbed and then re-emitting with some sort of time delay. It's called refraction.
(and I'm still waiting to hear from you what space is made of...)
says Whyde

What Space is made of? I have told Schnobe 3 or 4 times already what space is made of; he ignores it, and then he asked me to repeat it again.

Jul 26, 2019

EM Wavelength corresponds to the energy content of the Wave in question. What we don't know is why gravity can sort of suck energy out of an EM Wave with the effect of lengthening it. If gravity can do this, where does that sucked out energy go?


Not sure, Benni. But that energy might be spread out in the form of Mass or Matter. Matter and Energy are interchangeable, going back and forth from one form into the other. The Energy may have transformed into Mass.

Please explain this process...

Jul 26, 2019
Not sure, Benni. But that energy might be spread out in the form of Mass or Matter. Matter and Energy are interchangeable, going back and forth from one form into the other. The Energy may have transformed into Mass.
........for sure that energy went somewhere & came back just as suddenly as it disappeared.

The answer is tied up in the co-mingling gravity fields of the EM Wave & a higher mass gravitating body causing wave shifting when the wave enters/exits the influence of a higher mass body. The two gravity fields are attracted to one another as must be the case because there is no mass within the EM Wave for mass to be attracted to mass. In this case the more intense gravity field of a body links itself to the weaker field of the EM Wave causing lengthening or contraction of it's gravity wave, this in turn puts the squeeze on the EM Wave to lengthen or contract.
says Benni

Does gravity have a plus or minus charge?

Jul 26, 2019
...
(and I'm still waiting to hear from you what space is made of...)
says Whyde

What Space is made of? I have told Schnobe 3 or 4 times already what space is made of; he ignores it, and then he asked me to repeat it again.

Think you might have said, "Particles and quantum fluctuations..." or something on that order...
But those aren't "Space". They are things that RESIDE in space.
Space is volume and direction (both measured intangibles like "time"). Which are - concepts of the human mind, just like you say time is.
Example: You are floating in your spacesuit with no imminent rescue. Is up, down, left, right more real than the duration given to you before your oxygen runs out?

Jul 26, 2019

EM Wavelength corresponds to the energy content of the Wave in question. What we don't know is why gravity can sort of suck energy out of an EM Wave with the effect of lengthening it. If gravity can do this, where does that sucked out energy go?


Not sure, Benni. But that energy might be spread out in the form of Mass or Matter. Matter and Energy are interchangeable, going back and forth from one form into the other. The Energy may have transformed into Mass.

Please explain this process...
asks Whyde

As you know, Whyde, the Universe is made up of many forms of Matter and Energy. The two forms are able to transform into the other. That is why an atomic bomb is the process of turning Matter into Energy. It is almost the same principle of burning Matter hot enough to start the Fusion process in the Sun.
As to the reverse - that is a secret, and no human will ever be able to, or have the knowledge to accomplish it. It can be done out there in Space

Jul 26, 2019
...
(and I'm still waiting to hear from you what space is made of...)
says Whyde

What Space is made of? I have told Schnobe 3 or 4 times already what space is made of; he ignores it, and then he asked me to repeat it again.

Think you might have said, "Particles and quantum fluctuations..." or something on that order...
But those aren't "Space". They are things that RESIDE in space.
Space is volume and direction (both measured intangibles like "time"). Which are - concepts of the human mind, just like you say time is.
Example: You are floating in your spacesuit with no imminent rescue. Is up, down, left, right more real than the duration given to you before your oxygen runs out?


There is no up, down, left or right in the Cosmos. Directions are immaterial as all things are balanced to 0. It is only when you approach Mass that you are able to relate to it and give it a directional point when you land on it.
-contd-

Jul 26, 2019
Before you land on a planet, eg, you can look beyond it and see many other planets, many other galaxies, and so on. However, from YOUR perspective while floating in Space, you have no direction as it is all the same.
Of course, particles of Mass and Energies are infinitesimals floating in the Vacuum, so it isn't empty. But Space itself without particles, still isn't empty because it is still 'something' where there is a potential for something to happen or something being created in it. Space isn't restricted OR restrictive. It is fluid enough to bend, curve, fold in on itself, etc because it always has great potential. Whereas 'time' is only a figment of man's imagination that is measurable by clocks. And those clocks are dependent on Sunrise to Sunrise - 24 hours

Jul 27, 2019
Of course, particles of Mass and Energies are infinitesimals floating in the Vacuum, so it isn't empty. But Space itself without particles, still isn't empty because it is still 'something' where there is a potential for something to happen or something being created in it. Space isn't restricted OR restrictive. It is fluid enough to bend, curve, fold in on itself, etc because it always has great potential.

That doesn't answer the question - what IS it? Can you touch it? Can you even SEE it? (other than the aforementioned)
Whereas 'time' is only a figment of man's imagination that is measurable by clocks. And those clocks are dependent on Sunrise to Sunrise - 24 hours

Clocks measure the duration of the event of earth's rotation, which happens at a pretty predictable rate. So in essence, that event can be interpreted as a clock of sorts.
What is IT measuring?

Jul 27, 2019
The clock is measuring the Duration of an Event or Action. Yes, it's all predictable due to sunrise to sunrise is predictable. The Event is not the clock, it is only what is measurable BY a clock.

Yes, you CAN touch Space. It is a tangible something. It's all around you. It touches you also. You are breathing it.

What is measured is Duration that is of an Event or Action.
If you were standing on Jupiter's surface looking toward Earth, you would notice that Earth has a 24 hour cycle while YOU on Jupiter are rotating in (I think) 10 hours. So YOUR clock on Jupiter would be measuring the sunrise to sunrise as 10 hours. That's a big difference. And yet, your clock on Jupiter is accurate, but if you went to Earth with that clock, it would be off by about 14 hours.

Jul 27, 2019
The sunrise to sunrise cycle of the Earth's rotation is accurate. And yes, you could measure the 24 hour day/night/day by it. But it is inconvenient to sit outside for a 24 hour period just to measure that cycle. Which is why Clocks were invented. And is why the clock face has 12 numbers to denote the first 12 hours. Some clocks have double the numbers for the whole 24 hours.
But clocks are run only BY mechanisms. Atomic clocks don't need to be wound and run on Caesium, for example. But as I have said before many times, the concept of 'time' is not lurking/hiding in the mechanism of the clocks. The Clock is strictly a mechanised and manufactured timepiece that serves a purpose just like a tool such as a hammer or a spanner.

Jul 27, 2019
The sunrise to sunrise cycle of the Earth's rotation is accurate. And yes, you could measure the 24 hour day/night/day by it. But it is inconvenient to sit outside for a 24 hour period just to measure that cycle. Which is why Clocks were invented. And is why the clock face has 12 numbers to denote the first 12 hours. Some clocks have double the numbers for the whole 24 hours.
But clocks are run only BY mechanisms. Atomic clocks don't need to be wound and run on Caesium, for example. But as I have said before many times, the concept of 'time' is not lurking/hiding in the mechanism of the clocks. The Clock is strictly a mechanised and manufactured timepiece that serves a purpose just like a tool such as a hammer or a spanner.

Ergo, any planet rotating and circumnavigating the sun is such a tool...
Don't you get it?
EVERYTHING is a clock. Running synchronously so that we can measure and quantify it...

Jul 27, 2019
Light is a clock. It has a frequency; that's 1/time.

Jul 27, 2019

EVERYTHING is a clock. Running synchronously so that we can measure and quantify it...

EDIT: contiguously AND synchronously so that...

Jul 27, 2019
The sunrise to sunrise cycle of the Earth's rotation is accurate. And yes, you could measure the 24 hour day/night/day by it. But it is inconvenient to sit outside for a 24 hour period just to measure that cycle. Which is why Clocks were invented. And is why the clock face has 12 numbers to denote the first 12 hours. Some clocks have double the numbers for the whole 24 hours.
But clocks are run only BY mechanisms. Atomic clocks don't need to be wound and run on Caesium, for example. But as I have said before many times, the concept of 'time' is not lurking/hiding in the mechanism of the clocks. The Clock is strictly a mechanised and manufactured timepiece that serves a purpose just like a tool such as a hammer or a spanner.

Ergo, any planet rotating and circumnavigating the sun is such a tool...
Don't you get it?
EVERYTHING is a clock. Running synchronously so that we can measure and quantify it...


Not quite everything. It is through YOUR perspective.....

Jul 27, 2019
Through YOUR perspective that you are aware of the difference(s) or sameness in the rotation/scheduling of the planet on which you are viewing the passage of Events/Actions. It is your MIND that absorbs that information and causes you to react to that awareness.
Yes, the Clock of the Universe is the summation of all measurements of all the Events and Actions that are occurring currently within the Universe. It is the Master Clock, whereby all measurements of cycles/rotations/passages/distances/orientations are allowed to proceed in (for want of a better term, "Cosmic Time"). It is all physical processes occurring at once everywhere.
Orientations may include Altitude, Velocity, Direction, Time zones (24), weather, Lat and Long, and the physical condition of the clock. On another planet, all the orientations could be far different from Earth's. The Clock of the Universe has a very close relationship with the Mind, whether human or not.

Jul 27, 2019
By 'scheduling', I am referring to the uniformity of cycles, whether it is of rotation of planets and their orbits around their Star, or the smooth merging of galaxies, or the Evolution processes that allow the new to replace the old, in most cases. All done according to scheduling everywhere in the Universe, as well as simultaneously. There are Events and Actions occurring in locations that are multiple billions of light years apart.

Jul 27, 2019
The Muon and the Photon were racing to the ground

This muon imbedded in its rock
This athletic Muon
Racing to the ground in 2.2 micro-seconds
Will have embedded its self in its rock with its feet up given light a run for its money
For as this muon covers this 100km
In 2.2micro-seconds
Muon and photon
Side by side
Crossed this 100km together
Strike this ground together
The answer is simple
This muon
Does not decay in motion
This muon
Decays when stationary
When it imbeds itself in its rock
In 2.2micro-seconds

Photon and muon
Strike this ground together
Fore this muon decays
In 2.2micro-seconds
Imbedded in its rock

This Cox and Box: these detractors, knoweth howeth a muon and a photon a Femto-metre apart
Effectively in physical contact
Can live in this same Times Zone
Crossing this same length together
Length expansion and contraction, in this same Time zone, in contact is not Relative Motion
Fore according to dear old Albert, is not relative Time

Jul 27, 2019
This muon
Does not decay in motion
This muon
Decays when stationary
When it imbeds itself in its rock
In 2.2micro-seconds


Oh Christ, another loon has escaped its padded cell! The point is, you cretin, that a certain number of muons from decay processes should reach the ground, depending on the altitude at which they were created. We can create them at an altitude where non-relativistic equations say a certain number of them should reach the ground. That number is not what is observed. The number observed is much greater, and agrees with time dilation equations from relativity. Case closed.
Now, go hand yourself in to the asylum, and tell them to lock you up in your cell. And to throw away the key.

https://en.wikipe...dilation

Jul 27, 2019
The Muon and the Photon Strike this ground together

Frisch–Smith experiment
A much more precise experiment
Conducted by David H. Frisch and Smith (1963)
Who measured approximately 563 muons per hour?
In six runs on Mount Washington
By measuring their kinetic energy
Mean muon velocities
Between 0.995 c and 0.9954 c
The target was located in Cambridge, Massachusetts
With a difference in height of 1907 m
This should be traversed by the muons
In about 6.4 μs
Assuming a mean lifetime of 2.2 µs
Only 27 muons would reach this location
If there were no time dilation
However
Approximately 412 muons per hour
Arrived in Cambridge
Resulting in a time dilation factor of 8.8±0.8

Foreth
73% of the muons arrived on their rock
Then decayed in 2.2 µs
This all depends
Whether you believe
Length contraction
Or simply
Muons do not decay at 0.995 c

p.s. 73% is a very high arrival rate proving muons do not decay in flight
decaying when stationary, imbedding themselves in their rock

Jul 27, 2019
p.s. 73% is a very high arrival rate proving muons do not decay in flight
decaying when stationary, imbedding themselves in their rock


Idiot. Still don't get it, do you (rhetorical)? Nothing is embedding itself in rock, you simpleton. Most of the muons have decayed in-flight. What is being measured are undecayed muons. That would not be there but for relativity.
Go take your meds. If that happens to be a bottle of bleach, all the better.

Jul 27, 2019
The Muon and the Photon Strike this ground together

This muon
Does not decay in motion
This muon
Decays when stationary
When it imbeds itself in its rock
In 2.2micro-seconds

Relative length: By CastroGiovanni

Oh Christ
Another loon has escaped its padded cell!
The point is
You cretin
That a certain number of muons
From decay processes
Should reach the ground
Depending on the altitude
At which they were created
We can create them at an altitude
Where non-relativistic equations
Say a certain number of them
Should reach the ground
That number is not what is observed
The number observed is much greater
And agrees with time dilation equations from relativity
Case closed.
Now, go hand yourself in to the asylum
And tell them to lock you up in your cell
And to throw away the key

CastroGiovanni, for you are in need of quiet reflection
For you are suffering this finrot, this state of mind
This length contraction is this muon not decaying in flight

Jul 27, 2019
The Muon and the Photon

73% is a very high arrival rate proving muons do not decay in flight
Decaying when stationary, imbedding themselves in their rock

CastroGiovanni in Dilation
Idiot
Still don't get it
do you (rhetorical)?
Nothing is embedding itself in rock
you simpleton
Most of the muons have decayed in-flight
What is being measured?
Are undecayed muons
That would not be there but for relativity.
Go take your meds
If that happens to be a bottle of bleach
All the better

Foreth CastroGiovanni
A 73% muon arrival rate
Is not as you say, "Most of the muons have decayed in-flight"

Even by CastroGiovannies Obfuscation, a 73% arrival rate is not most of the muons decaying in flight

Jul 27, 2019
CastroGiovanni, for you are in need of quiet reflection
For you are suffering this finrot, this state of mind
This length contraction is this muon not decaying in flight


Oh FFS! You really are dumb. Here, I'll try the version for the mentally ill; muon lifetime means that only a certain percentage should remain undecayed at a measuring station at lower altitude. Experiment and observation shows that the number of undecayed muons detected is greater than the non-relativistic calculations would expect. The percentage remaining agrees well with relativity based calculations, and are a confirmation of time dilation.

http://hyperphysi...uon.html

Jul 27, 2019
The Muon and the Photon

CastroGiovanni, really
The muon is a massive particle
Do you not know that massive particles cannot travel at the speed of light
When it is said, CastroGiovanni
Muons do not decay in flight
This obviously means at the speed of light
As any speed below the speed of light
Means, CastroGiovanni
This muon starts slowly decaying at a slower rate than a muon at rest
For this 2.2micro-second muon decay rate is at rest

Jul 27, 2019
Not sure, Benni. But that energy might be spread out in the form of Mass or Matter. Matter and Energy are interchangeable, going back and forth from one form into the other. The Energy may have transformed into Mass.
........for sure that energy went somewhere & came back just as suddenly as it disappeared.

The answer is tied up in the co-mingling gravity fields of the EM Wave & a higher mass gravitating body causing wave shifting when the wave enters/exits the influence of a higher mass body. The two gravity fields are attracted to one another as must be the case because there is no mass within the EM Wave for mass to be attracted to mass. In this case the more intense gravity field of a body links itself to the weaker field of the EM Wave causing lengthening or contraction of it's gravity wave, this in turn puts the squeeze on the EM Wave to lengthen or contract.
says Benni

Does gravity have a plus or minus charge?
.....neither.

Jul 27, 2019
Does gravity have a plus or minus charge?

.....neither.


......and how do I know you might ask?

If gravity has a fixed charge it would only attract mass of the opposite charge. Yet all over the Universe we observe the same effect of gravity at any level of charge be it negative, neutral or positive charges.

Jul 27, 2019
Minkowski spacetime

Minkowski space
Is a combination
Of three-dimensional Euclidean space
And time into a four-dimensional manifold
Where the spacetime interval
Between any two events
Is independent
Of the inertial frame of reference
In which they are recorded
The mathematical structure of Minkowski spacetime is the postulates of special relativity

Minkowski space is Einstein's theory of special relativity
Is the mathematical structure on which special relativity is formulated

Jul 27, 2019
Minkowski spacetime

Is a combination
Of three-dimensional Euclidean space
And
Time into a four-dimensional manifold

Foreth, space is a 3-dimensional vacuum
That with this addition of time
gives 4-dimensions

Even though time
Is simply
A mathematical construct
On how long the speed of light takes to travel the length of an average adult
For
With no knowledge or conception of time or length
In this vacuum we have an unchanging constant - The speed of light

For we can measure distances with this speed of light
When the earth completes one orbit of our sun
We can say that is one light year
With no conception of length or time
So
For all these detractors who believe in time
Because we have our constant, The speed of light

It is as though - Time does not exist

Jul 27, 2019
For all these detractors who believe in time
Because we have our constant, the speed of light

It is as though - Time does not exist
.......and at lightspeed the 4th dimension of Minkowski's SPACETIME goes to zero as per Lorentz Contraction equations as per graphic example provided at:

https://www.fourm...ntz.html

.....at least somebody in this chatroom has been reading the actual text of Special Relativity.

Jul 27, 2019
This muon starts slowly decaying at a slower rate than a muon at rest
Not exactly, if you're moving along with the muon then you're at rest with respect to the muon and you won't observe time dilation for that muon, but you will for the one that appears to be moving relative to you. So in the inertial frame of each, both still decay at the same rate...

Jul 27, 2019
.......and at lightspeed the 4th dimension of Minkowski's SPACETIME goes to zero as per Lorentz Contraction equations as per graphic example provided at: https://www.fourm...ntz.html

But quoting from your link: "What's actually going on in the Lorentz contraction, as we'll discover a bit further down the road, is that as you approach the speed of light, you're increasingly looking at the four-dimensional fabric of space and time "edge-on", causing space and time to mix."

Jul 27, 2019
It is as though - Time does not exist

For all these detractors who believe in time
......and at lightspeed the 4th dimension of Minkowski's SPACETIME goes to zero as per Lorentz

It has been said time stands still for our constant, the speed of light
For as we measure 2million Lys to Andromeda
We measure with the speed of light where time stands still
So we cannot calculate velocity v=l/t with time
Because
At the speed of light time stands still
So for all these detractors
However it's looked at
It is as though - Time does not exist

So a posthumous Thank you, to Hermann Minkowski, for proving Time does not exist

Jul 27, 2019
My thought on Black Holes.
https://drive.goo...B2R/view

Jul 27, 2019
However, his theory is definitely showing vulnerability. It cannot fully explain gravity inside a black hole, and at some point we will need to move beyond Einstein's theory to a more comprehensive theory of gravity that explains what a black hole is."

Dead guesswork walking, as I have stated before.
The acolytes seem worried and offended by the claims of this award winning scientist. LOL!

Jul 27, 2019
However, his theory is definitely showing vulnerability. It cannot fully explain gravity inside a black hole, and at some point we will need to move beyond Einstein's theory to a more comprehensive theory of gravity that explains what a black hole is."

Dead guesswork walking, as I have stated before.
The acolytes seem worried and offended by the claims of this award winning scientist. LOL!
Awful lot of dead guesswork has been dead on so far. Why would any sane person worry about learning?

Jul 27, 2019
This Muon Starts Slowly Decaying at a Slower Rate than a Muon at Rest

Relative Time Dilation: By Protoplasmix
Not exactly
If you're moving along with the muon
Then you're at rest with respect to the muon
And you won't observe time dilation for that muon
But you will for the one
That appears to be moving relative to you
So in the inertial frame of each
Both still decay at the same rate

Protoplasmix, foreth it appears you require some cool quiet reflection
As you are asking us to believe when we move with this muon at 0.995 c
It is as thought we are sitting with this muon upon its demise on our lap in 2.2micro-seconds
Fore you are saying, Protoplasmix
That as we observe at a distance this muons length contracts
But when we fly with this muon it is though were are at rest on planet earth

Protoplasmix, based on your textulisations this muons time and length are exactly the same as when at rest on planet earth!

Jul 27, 2019
For granville583762 and the egg: A Brief Outline of Time

Jul 27, 2019
However, his theory is definitely showing vulnerability. It cannot fully explain gravity inside a black hole, and at some point we will need to move beyond Einstein's theory to a more comprehensive theory of gravity that explains what a black hole is."

Dead guesswork walking, as I have stated before.
The acolytes seem worried and offended by the claims of this award winning scientist. LOL!
Awful lot of dead guesswork has been dead on so far. Why would any sane person worry about learning?

It fails miserably at scales larger than the solar system, but who cares about facts.

Jul 27, 2019
The Muon and the Photon

CastroGiovanni, really
The muon is a massive particle
Do you not know that massive particles cannot travel at the speed of light
When it is said, CastroGiovanni
Muons do not decay in flight
This obviously means at the speed of light
As any speed below the speed of light
Means, CastroGiovanni
This muon starts slowly decaying at a slower rate than a muon at rest
For this 2.2micro-second muon decay rate is at rest


Stop commenting you clown. This stuff is way beyond you. The muons are at ~ 0.994 c. We can use that to predict their behaviour. And do. And it confirms Einstein's relativity, including time dilation. End of story.

Jul 27, 2019
Dead guesswork walking, as I have stated before.
The acolytes seem worried and offended by the claims of this award winning scientist. LOL!


Wrong. Had you known anything about the subject, you would know that Einstein's relativity works at all levels where we've measured and/ or observed it. It has also long been known that the maths of relativity leads to a singularity. And that such a thing cannot happen in reality. Therefore, just as Newton's laws were fine (and still are) to certain levels, and then break down, then so is relativity, which goes beyond Newton. And then comes a level where that breaks down. Which is where the long hoped for quantum gravity comes riding to the rescue. If and when that happens, we can then test the limits of that.
Ho hum. That is how science proceeds.

Jul 27, 2019
It fails miserably at scales larger than the solar system, but who cares about facts.


Nope, it works just fine until you reach a singularity. Unless you can show where relativity has been falsified? I'm certainly not aware of any such observation or measurement.

Jul 27, 2019
.....at least somebody in this chatroom has been reading the actual text of Special Relativity.


And failing to understand it. As shown. This is the clown who claimed Einstein's gravity wasn't a product of the distortion of spacetime. By doing a word search for 'warped' and 'curved'!!!! And obviously failing to read the text, and understand the maths, and having no idea what the words 'geodesic' and 'curvilinear' mean!
We should not concern ourselves with clueless janitors, who have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to science.

Oh, and it's not a chatroom, you clown.

Jul 27, 2019
.......and at lightspeed the 4th dimension of Minkowski's SPACETIME goes to zero as per Lorentz Contraction equations as per graphic example provided at: https://www.fourm...ntz.html

But quoting from your link: "What's actually going on in the Lorentz contraction, as we'll discover a bit further down the road, is that as you approach the speed of light, you're increasingly looking at the four-dimensional fabric of space and time "edge-on", causing space and time to mix."
.......yes, they merge, and when they merge there is nothing distinguishable within the co-ordinates except as the appearance of a POINT. The only thing left for us to wonder about is what scientists conjecture as a POINT.

Jul 27, 2019
Surveillance_Egg_Unit makes a suggrstion of a point but not necessarily the right way. Surveillance_Egg_Unit says of shifts being indications of the motions of mass and occurs when the photon turns into mass.
The fact is it can be said that, in "science", no one knows what the shift of a photon is, while it is in flight. What can be called the determination co9mes when the photon stops. It doesn't turn into mass, it is absorbed in the electromagnetic field of the mass. But, in "science", that is the only time the shift is observed, no while the photon in moving! And the photon is supposedly always affected by gravity, by changing its path slightly, although it doesn't seem determined if photons change shift when they are "bent" by gravity.

Jul 27, 2019
It fails miserably at scales larger than the solar system, but who cares about facts.


Nope, it works just fine until you reach a singularity. Unless you can show where relativity has been falsified? I'm certainly not aware of any such observation or measurement.

Two words, dark matter. Utter fail.

Jul 27, 2019
The Muon the Photon and the Mop
Stop commenting you clowns, This stuff is way beyond you

Foreth, this Mop hath arrived to mop up the spills
Of all these errant comments spilling on floor!


Jul 27, 2019
Not sure, Benni. But that energy might be ...going back and forth from one form into the other. The Energy may have transformed into Mass.
........for sure that energy went somewhere & came back just as suddenly as it disappeared.

The answer is tied up in the co-mingling gravity fields of the EM Wave & a higher mass gravitating body causing wave shifting when the wave enters/exits the influence of a higher mass body. The two gravity fields are attracted to one another as must be the case because there is no mass within the EM Wave for mass to be attracted to mass. In this case the more intense gravity field of a body links itself to the weaker field of the EM Wave causing lengthening or contraction of it's gravity wave, this in turn puts the squeeze on the EM Wave to lengthen or contract.
says Benni

Does gravity have a plus or minus charge?
.....neither.
says Benni

Thanks. I wasn't sure, so I thought I'd better ask about it.

Jul 27, 2019
.......and at lightspeed the 4th dimension of Minkowski's SPACETIME goes to zero as per Lorentz Contraction equations as per graphic example provided at: https://www.fourm...ntz.html

But quoting from your link: "What's actually going on in the Lorentz contraction, as we'll discover a bit further down the road, is that as you approach the speed of light, you're increasingly looking at the four-dimensional fabric of space and time "edge-on", causing space and time to mix."
says protoplasmix

But does it explain what 'time' is made of? And what gives this 'time' the ability to mix with Space, or anything else? The 'Fabric of Space' is only 3 dimensional, which is what gives Space the ability to bend, curve, lengthen, shorten, fold into itself, etc.
The Duration of Events/Actions is not explained by the euphemistic term 'time' as a 4th dimension. Distance or Motion are a more adequate term that relate best to the first 3 dimensions AND Space.

Jul 27, 2019
SpaceTime

.....at least somebody in this chatroom has been reading the actual text of Special Relativity
Whereas, we hath
The mop
CastroGiovanni: And failing to understand it
As shown
This is the clown who claimed Einstein's gravity wasn't a product of the distortion of spacetime
By doing a word search for 'warped' and 'curved'!!!!
And obviously failing to read the text
And understand the maths
And having no idea what the words 'geodesic' and 'curvilinear' mean!
We should not concern ourselves with clueless janitors
Who have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to science.

Where The mop, advises one and all to a word search for 'warped' and 'curved'!!!!
To find this meaning of this vacuous vacuum some call spacetime, for where in the laboratory hath these experiments been carried out on this vacuum where are the pneumatic press's used to compress, bend and stretch this vacuum
In the immortal words of "The mop" where's your sources
Tis time to prove this SpaceTime


Jul 27, 2019
No mention of Einstein's illegitimate child that it seems he was never asked to discuss in public for some odd reason, the invisible one named "Dark Matter."

Jul 27, 2019

Two words, dark matter. Utter fail.


What has that got to do with SR and GR, dumbo? Explain. And then explain the lensing observed from matter that we cannot see nor detect. And don't give me that plasma bullshit. Plasma cannot do that, and is detectable matter anyway. And whatever is causing the lensing in e.g. the Bullet Cluster is not detectable matter. Better still, link me to the scientific paper where this has been explained.
As usual, you have only ignorance and a belief system to peddle. Go get an education.

Jul 27, 2019
In the immortal words of "The mop" where's your sources
Tis time to prove this SpaceTime



Long since proven, thicko. Never heard of gravitational lensing? Clown. Stop commenting, you are a total waste of space.

Jul 27, 2019
For granville583762 and the egg: http://hyperphysi....html#c1
says protoplasmix

Perhaps you really meant to say, "A Brief History of Time" authored by Sir Stepen, rather than "A Brief Outline of Time". The latter title relates to analysis in a business/commercial sense. But I will check your link in any case to find out what their foolishness is in regards to the nonexistent 'time'

Jul 27, 2019
But I will check your link in any case to find out what their foolishness is in regards to the nonexistent 'time'


No you won't, as you don't have a scooby about any of the relevant science!

Jul 27, 2019
Apparently it is too bright and densely massive in the vicinity of the center of our galaxy for any "Dark Matter" to come out to play. The Milky Way supposedly has a bulge in the bar at the center but no "Dark Matter" effect worth mentioning in this article. It all adds up to a tremendous bonus windfall for the most sadistic of "Dark Matter" fetishists. Nothing new.

Jul 27, 2019
SpaceTime - This Elixir of Life

Gravity, a product of this distortion of SpaceTime
Time, a product of this distortion of SpaceTime
Length, a product of this distortion of SpaceTime
Inertia, a product of this distortion of SpaceTime
Foreth
This very substance of this distortion of SpaceTime
Space, offers no earthly resistance to motion of mass unless that mass is acted on by a force
Space offers no visibility to its substance, as it offers no resistance to motion
In the 5billion years this earth has occupied this space
Time has shown no evidence of its existence
Has shown no evidence of its past, as its shown no evidence of its future
Time has only shown a fleeting moment of this present, when this present is instantly this past
Foreth
No one has captured this fleeting timely present
No one hath proved Time, This SpaceTime

This infinite vacuous vacuum of space

Jul 27, 2019
For granville583762 and the egg: http://hyperphysi....html#c1
says proto

Just read your link: "Our experience with mechanical reality reinforces the notion of time as an independent variable. For example, if we throw a ball, it follows a well-defined and deterministic trajectory determined by the acceleration of gravity and the initial conditions. Once those initial conditions are specified, the position of the ball can be calculated precisely at any time t.

When we see the ball in motion, we follow it with the progress of time and clearly perceive the direction of time, but the equations themselves would work just as well with time running backward, as if we played the video of the ball toss backward. The mathematics of Newtonian mechanics does not tell us the direction of time."

LOL Pure silly BS. How is it possible to "clearly perceive" the direction of 'time'? You can only follow progression of the ball IN MOTION, not in 'time'.
-contd-

Jul 27, 2019


LOL Pure silly BS. How is it possible to "clearly perceive" the direction of 'time'? You can only follow progression of the ball IN MOTION, not in 'time'.
-contd-


Give up you uneducated idiot.

Jul 27, 2019
-contd-
Throw a ball; well-defined trajectory; acceleration of gravity; plus conditions; position of the ball. These are all physical Actions.

Ball in motion; follow its progress. And then they try to incorporate the "progress and direction of 'time'" into the mix, as though 'time' suddenly became a PHYSICAL INFLUENCE on the ball's progression.
The concept of 'time' has nothing to with the progress of the ball. The Duration of the ball's mechanical Action itself is what determines its outcome. Math may be used to predict that outcome, but predictions are often wrong.

Jul 27, 2019
-contd-
Throw a ball; well-defined trajectory; acceleration of gravity; plus conditions; position of the ball. These are all physical Actions.

Ball in motion; follow its progress. And then they try to incorporate the "progress and direction of 'time'" into the mix, as though 'time' suddenly became a PHYSICAL INFLUENCE on the ball's progression.
The concept of 'time' has nothing to with the progress of the ball. The Duration of the ball's mechanical Action itself is what determines its outcome. Math may be used to predict that outcome, but predictions are often wrong.


Jesus H. Christ! The stoopid, it hurtz! Forget it you clown - you haven't got the foggiest notion about any relevant science.

Jul 27, 2019


LOL Pure silly BS. How is it possible to "clearly perceive" the direction of 'time'? You can only follow progression of the ball IN MOTION, not in 'time'.
-contd-


Give up you uneducated idiot.
says Castrovagina

Your own words condemn you. You have nothing to say that refutes what I have said, which tells me that you are not as educated as you try to make everyone believe you are.
No rebuttal means that you just like to have something to say for the sake of saying something, even though it's nonsense.

Jul 27, 2019
Jesus H. Christ! The stoopid, it hurtz! Forget it you clown - you haven't got the foggiest notion about any relevant science.
says Castrovagina

I see that you have been either just imitating the words of the demonically-possessed Schneib, or YOU YOURSELF are also demonically-possessed. If the latter, then Satan/Lucifer is also your Master, just as he is also Schneib's master. I have no pity for you.

Jul 27, 2019


LOL Pure silly BS. How is it possible to "clearly perceive" the direction of 'time'? You can only follow progression of the ball IN MOTION, not in 'time'.
-contd-


Give up you uneducated idiot.
says Castrovagina

Your own words condemn you. You have nothing to say that refutes what I have said, which tells me that you are not as educated as you try to make everyone believe you are.
No rebuttal means that you just like to have something to say for the sake of saying something, even though it's nonsense.


There is nothing to rebut, you loon! No science whatsoever. You are the only person on the planet with this dumb idea. And you are as thick as pigsh!t! That time exists is proven beyond any doubt. And nobody is questioning that. Nobody sane, anyway. Show me the scienctific paper where this exists, and maybe I'll read it, and see if anyone has rebutted it. Otherwise it doesn't exist. It is merely the product of a deranged mind.

Jul 27, 2019
Jesus H. Christ! The stoopid, it hurtz! Forget it you clown - you haven't got the foggiest notion about any relevant science.
says Castrovagina

I see that you have been either just imitating the words of the demonically-possessed Schneib, or YOU YOURSELF are also demonically-possessed. If the latter, then Satan/Lucifer is also your Master, just as he is also Schneib's master. I have no pity for you.


Hahahahahahahahahaha! Bloody fruitloop. Go take your meds and have a lie down. On a motorway.

Jul 27, 2019
Time is ONLY a CONCEPT that was created by the Mind of humans. The term 'spacetime' is too ingrained into the minds of scientists and researchers, who are now too frightened to refute its unreality, otherwise they would be shunned and rebuked by the rest of the scientific community.

The concept of 'time' is too firmly ensconced in the human psyche by centuries of indoctrination.

Jul 27, 2019
Jesus H. Christ! The stoopid, it hurtz! Forget it you clown - you haven't got the foggiest notion about any relevant science.
says Castrovagina

I see that you have been either just imitating the words of the demonically-possessed Schneib, or YOU YOURSELF are also demonically-possessed. If the latter, then Satan/Lucifer is also your Master, just as he is also Schneib's master. I have no pity for you.


Hahahahahahahahahaha! Bloody fruitloop. Go take your meds and have a lie down. On a motorway.
says Castrati

Typical reaction by a very frightened human who is demonically-possessed. Have you kissed the hand of your master, Beelzebub lately?

Jul 27, 2019
Time is ONLY a CONCEPT that was created by the Mind of humans. The term 'spacetime' is too ingrained into the minds of scientists and researchers, who are now too frightened to refute its unreality, otherwise they would be shunned and rebuked by the rest of the scientific community.

The concept of 'time' is too firmly ensconced in the human psyche by centuries of indoctrination.


Idiot. Nobody in the scientific community disbelieves in spacetime, and in time in particular. The only people who would be shunned, are deranged imbeciles making the sort of unscientific, moronic claims that you are. Thankfully, scientists are too well educated to conceive of such verbal diarrhea.

Jul 27, 2019
You have just proven me correct. Indoctrinaion is a powerful tool of the Mind.

Jul 27, 2019
Typical reaction by a very frightened human who is demonically-possessed. Have you kissed the hand of your master, Beelzebub lately?


Anyone see the irony here? A bloke who claims to be possessed by an alien lizard that crawled up his arse, is a big friend of Jeezus, and believes in demonic possession? Lol. Anybody out there who doesn't believe this cockwomble is insane? Thought not.

Jul 27, 2019
Typical reaction by a very frightened human who is demonically-possessed. Have you kissed the hand of your master, Beelzebub lately?


Anyone see the irony here? A bloke who claims to be possessed by an alien lizard that crawled up his arse, is a big friend of Jeezus, and believes in demonic possession? Lol. Anybody out there who doesn't believe this cockwomble is insane? Thought not.
says the demonically-possessed CastroV

That 'alien lizard' accusation was started by Schneib who hates Creationists. Schneib tells lies about many physorg commenters, and it is those like you who like to believe Schneib's lies. You are his 'brother' in so many ways.

Jul 27, 2019
You have just proven me correct. Indoctrinaion is a powerful tool of the Mind.


Nope. There is a shed load of evidence. You are just too dumb and uneducated to understand it.

Jul 27, 2019
You don't believe that you and Schneib are both demonically-possessed, and yet, you believe in the existence of 'time', which cannot be seen. But you could NEVER explain to us what 'time' is made of.

Jul 27, 2019
That 'alien lizard' accusation was started by Schneib who hates Creationists.


Nope, you claimed to be possessed by an alien. And creationists are as thick as pigsh!t. By definition. Either way, you are insane.

Jul 27, 2019
You have just proven me correct. Indoctrinaion is a powerful tool of the Mind.


Nope. There is a shed load of evidence. You are just too dumb and uneducated to understand it.


Nope. There is NO evidence that 'time' actually exists, except in your thoroughly indoctrinate, trained mind. You are like a trained seal who claps his fins to get some fish.
If scientists announce one day that 'time' is actually nonexistent, you would surely fall down dead from heart failure at hearing bad news. Which will happen.

Jul 27, 2019
You don't believe that you and Schneib are both demonically-possessed, and yet, you believe in the existence of 'time', which cannot be seen. But you could NEVER explain to us what 'time' is made of.


It is a frigging stupid question from a retard. Time exists, you imbecile. As proven. Nobody is claiming otherwise.

Jul 27, 2019
That 'alien lizard' accusation was started by Schneib who hates Creationists.


Nope, you claimed to be possessed by an alien. And creationists are as thick as pigsh!t. By definition. Either way, you are insane.


You are perfectly willing to believe the lies that Schneib tells. Show me the evidence where I have personally ever claimed to be an alien lizard or possessed by an alien. Be quick about it, now.

Jul 27, 2019
Nope. There is NO evidence that 'time' actually exists,...


Yes there is. And nobody is questioning that evidence. Except a retard with a lizard up his arse, on a comments section, who thinks Voyager 1 is in the Oort cloud! Sorry, nobody is buying your deranged delusions. You have no science. You are a moron.

Jul 27, 2019
You don't believe that you and Schneib are both demonically-possessed, and yet, you believe in the existence of 'time', which cannot be seen. But you could NEVER explain to us what 'time' is made of.


It is a frigging stupid question from a retard. Time exists, you imbecile. As proven. Nobody is claiming otherwise.


Just answer the question, dummy. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?

Why don't you just admit that you don't know, and you will never know.

The Oort Cloud was a mistake and I admitted to it. Why do you continue to harp on the mistake?

Jul 27, 2019
IF you can tell us WHAT TIME IS MADE OF, then I/we will still include your user name in our book as the fool who thought that 'time' exists.

Jul 27, 2019
IF 'time' exists, then it has to be made of something - anything, just as everything in the Universe is made of various forms of Matter/Energy, not faerie dust like 'time'. There is NO SOLID EVIDENCE for the existence of 'time'. It is not even a "thing". HOW do you qualify 'time' as something tangible?

Jul 27, 2019
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?
Imagine a two minute egg without the two minutes... yolk's on you

Jul 27, 2019
IF 'time' exists, then it has to be made of something - anything, just as everything in the Universe is made of various forms of Matter/Energy, not faerie dust like 'time'. There is NO SOLID EVIDENCE for the existence of 'time'. It is not even a "thing". HOW do you qualify 'time' as something tangible?


What are thoughts made of, dickhead? Time exists. As proven. Multiple times. No one is questioning that. Other than you. And you are insane.

Jul 27, 2019
SEU
Since you started exorcising The mop, the flood has become a torrent
As this torrent is a smoke screen to avoid the difficult substance of time
In fact, where are these big beasts of this defunct club of stars?
Not one has stood up to the plate to set the slate to rights

Surely these big beasts are not running scared?

Jul 27, 2019
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?
Imagine a two minute egg without the two minutes... yolk's on you
says protoplasmix

LOL Is Castrovagina hiding under your skirt? Still waiting for his answer.

Minutes are the increments of a clock, mechanical or atomic. The 2 minutes are the passage of an Event, where you are boiling the water and the Action of the boiling water is cooking the egg. There is no 'time' involved in the mechanics of cooking an egg. It is a physical Event/Action

Jul 27, 2019
SEU
Since you started exorcising The mop, the flood has become a torrent
As this torrent is a smoke screen to avoid the difficult substance of time
In fact, where are these big beasts of this defunct club of stars?
Not one has stood up to the plate to set the slate to rights

Surely these big beasts are not running scared?
says granville

They are busy reading both responses in the matter of the alleged 'time'. As is most likely, none of the readers of physorg are able to answer this very important query of "What is time made of"

Belief in 'time' also amounts to the disbelief in a Creator, where neither are able to be quantified except in the hearts and minds of their believers. There is no evidence of the existence of 'time', just as it is not possible to provide evidence of the Creator, except for those of us who know Him.

Jul 27, 2019
Belief in 'time' also amounts to the disbelief in a Creator, where neither are able to be quantified except in the hearts and minds of their believers. There is no evidence of the existence of 'time', just as it is not possible to provide evidence of the Creator, except for those of us who know Him.


See what I mean? This idiot is insane! Another religious, creationist cretin!

Jul 27, 2019
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?
Imagine a two minute egg without the two minutes... yolk's on you

Minutes are the increments of a clock, mechanical or atomic. The 2 minutes are the passage of an Event, where you are boiling the water and the Action of the boiling water is cooking the egg. There is no 'time' involved in the mechanics of cooking an egg. It is a physical Event/Action
So then time is made of all the events. Now who's condemned with their own words?

Jul 27, 2019
Minutes are the increments of a clock, mechanical or atomic. The 2 minutes are the passage of an Event, where you are boiling the water and the Action of the boiling water is cooking the egg. There is no 'time' involved in the mechanics of cooking an egg. It is a physical Event/Action


And in what universe does that pile of fetid crap make any sense? Not this one.

Jul 27, 2019
IF 'time' exists, then it has to be made of something - anything, just as everything in the Universe is made of various forms of Matter/Energy, not faerie dust like 'time'. There is NO SOLID EVIDENCE for the existence of 'time'. It is not even a "thing". HOW do you qualify 'time' as something tangible?


What are thoughts made of, dickhead? Time exists. As proven. Multiple times. No one is questioning that. Other than you. And you are insane.
says Castro the janitor

Thoughts? Now you want to discuss Thoughts, when you can't even answer the question of "What is time made of?"
Time does not exist, just as protoplasmic's 2 minute boiling egg is a PHYSICAL Action that does not include 'time'. Although an egg timing MACHINE or CLOCK may be used as reference.

Jul 27, 2019
Belief in 'time' also amounts to the disbelief in a Creator, where neither are able to be quantified except in the hearts and minds of their believers. There is no evidence of the existence of 'time', just as it is not possible to provide evidence of the Creator, except for those of us who know Him.


See what I mean? This idiot is insane! Another religious, creationist cretin!


Nope. We don't subscribe to ANY manmade religion. It seems to me that in your opposition to Creatiionist thought and beliefs, you are also in opposition to my RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. Are you a Communist, or merely a Socialist who wishes to muzzle all who oppose you?

Jul 27, 2019
Thoughts? Now you want to discuss Thoughts, when you can't even answer the question of "What is time made of?"
Time does not exist, just as protoplasmic's 2 minute boiling egg is a PHYSICAL Action that does not include 'time'. Although an egg timing MACHINE or CLOCK may be used as reference.


And another pile of unscientific crap. Do some science, you imbecile. You haven't got a clue, lizard boy.

Jul 27, 2019
Nope. We don't subscribe to ANY manmade religion.


And who is we? There is only one of you, thicko. And what other types of religion are there, other than man made ones? Duh!

Jul 27, 2019
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?
Imagine a two minute egg without the two minutes... yolk's on you

Minutes are the increments of a clock, mechanical or atomic. The 2 minutes are the passage of an Event, where you are boiling the water and the Action of the boiling water is cooking the egg. There is no 'time' involved in the mechanics of cooking an egg. It is a physical Event/Action
So then time is made of all the events. Now who's condemned with their own words?
says proton

The Flow of Events and Actions are natural and normal occurrences in the Universe. As I said to Whyde, the clocks adjusted for the 24 hour cycle on Earth would have to be adjusted for the 10 hour rotation cycle on Jupiter. And that the same clock back on Earth would have a surplus of 14 hours. This means that everything in the Universe is a mechanical process. MECHANICAL - no 'time' involved. What you call 'time' is a thought, a concept, a unicorn.

Jul 27, 2019
Remember the famous priest of creation - Georges Lemaitre

Jonesdave, remember, remember your original outburst in those hazy lazy days
When you had a crusade against who will rid jonesy of this petulant priest
Your comment jonesdave: "See what I mean? This idiot is insane! Another religious, creationist cretin!"
Remember the famous priest of creation - Georges Lemaitre
For now you are paying penance for taking an Ordained Priests Theories in Vain
Aren't we Castrogiovanni

Jul 27, 2019
Nope. We don't subscribe to ANY manmade religion.


And who is we? There is only one of you, thicko. And what other types of religion are there, other than man made ones? Duh!


Duh, he says. Proving that 'the Mop' is unable to answer the queries asked of him. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF, Mopman?


Jul 27, 2019
@granville
I doubt that Lemaitre was a 'gelical' who are those who wrongly oppose belief in Evolution, and who seem to think that the Earth is but 7000 years old, in spite of all the evidence otherwise. But they are free to believe as they wish, as long as they do no harm to others, and don't blaspheme as CastroV and Schneib are in the habit of doing as they say their prayers to their unholy master.


Jul 27, 2019
@granville
I doubt that Lemaitre was a 'gelical' who are those who wrongly oppose belief in Evolution, and who seem to think that the Earth is but 7000 years old, in spite of all the evidence otherwise. But they are free to believe as they wish, as long as they do no harm to others, and don't blaspheme as CastroV and Schneib are in the habit of doing as they say their prayers to their unholy master.


Insane tosser.

Jul 27, 2019
@granville
I doubt that Lemaitre was a 'gelical' who are those who wrongly oppose belief in Evolution, and who seem to think that the Earth is but 7000 years old, in spite of all the evidence otherwise. But they are free to believe as they wish, as long as they do no harm to others, and don't blaspheme as CastroV and Schneib are in the habit of doing as they say their prayers to their unholy master.


Insane tosser.


LMAO
I would suggest that the Mop man would make a great snack for his Master, Beelzebub.

Jul 27, 2019
Nope. We don't subscribe to ANY manmade religion.


And who is we? There is only one of you, thicko. And what other types of religion are there, other than man made ones? Duh!


Duh, he says. Proving that 'the Mop' is unable to answer the queries asked of him. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF, Mopman?


Time is not made of anything, you f***ing clown. And who is 'we', lizard boy?

Jul 27, 2019
Nope. We don't subscribe to ANY manmade religion.


And who is we? There is only one of you, thicko. And what other types of religion are there, other than man made ones? Duh!


Duh, he says. Proving that 'the Mop' is unable to answer the queries asked of him. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF, Mopman?


Time is not made of anything, you f***ing clown. And who is 'we', lizard boy?
says Castro the Mop man

ROFLOL But if 'time' is not made of anything, then it would be unable to interact with anything, dummy. That includes no interaction with SPACE, GRAVITY, MASS, SPEED OF LIGHT, ENERGY, 2 MINUTE EGGS in boiling water, etc etc
But now, you have to explain to us HOW you KNOW that 'time' is not made of anything, Mop man.

Jul 27, 2019
Nope. We don't subscribe to ANY manmade religion.


And who is we? There is only one of you, thicko. And what other types of religion are there, other than man made ones? Duh!


Duh, he says. Proving that 'the Mop' is unable to answer the queries asked of him. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF, Mopman?


Time is not made of anything, you f***ing clown. And who is 'we', lizard boy?
says Castro the Mop man

ROFLOL But if 'time' is not made of anything, then it would be unable to interact with anything, dummy. That includes no interaction with SPACE, GRAVITY, MASS, SPEED OF LIGHT, ENERGY, 2 MINUTE EGGS in boiling water, etc etc
But now, you have to explain to us HOW you KNOW that 'time' is not made of anything, Mop man.


No, I don't have to do anything, you ignorant tosser, because nobody is claiming time doesn't exist. And who is 'we'? Is this your alien lizard friend?

Jul 27, 2019
Mop man has just eliminated the whole concept of "SPACETIME" with his proffered "Time is not made of anything" that he proclaimed above.