Re: Starting out without gravity creates Boundries
From: Dale Trynor (dalet_at_nbnet.nb.ca)
Date: 07/28/04
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Previous message: Nick: "Re: Relativity as zombiism"
- In reply to: Mitchell: "Re: Starting out without gravity creates Boundries"
- Next in thread: Francisco Diaz Jr.: "Re: Starting out without gravity creates Boundries"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 07:59:26 GMT
Mitchell wrote:
> Dale Trynor <dalet@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message news:<WilNc.83344$Np3.4002401@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>...
>
>>Mitchell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>fsegg@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.0407182004.325a0ee8@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>
[snip]
>>have a situation where one can only measure those distances depending on
>>the amount of time available to do those measures.
>>This means that in one second the particles have only enough time to
>>measure the size of their universe depending on the distance light could
>>have traveled in that time and not its actual size.
>>Lots more on this theory.
>>Dale
>
>
> Your going to have to simplify Dale.
> I understand the Shapiro effect. The delay to the light ray by gravity
> is two fold. First the time dilation slows the light and second the
> curved path the light follows is slightly longer than ordinarilly
> would be in flat space.
Dale Trynor wrote:
You got it right but its the time delay due to time being slower that's
responsible for space expansion. I often make the point that if the
delay were only as much as what one would get by bending the light as
one can do with mirrors, then the theory would of course be wrong.
> I can't follow you Dale. I need a simple understanding of what you
> are trying to communicate.
> The above is my simple understanding of a space lengthening and
> time slowing both which contribute to the Shapiro effect.
Try it this way, if one were to have a box with a slower time inside of
it and we have two observers, the one inside and the one outside the box
we get disagreements on both volume and distances in this theory. For
example, our outside observer would argue that the space is unchanged
because he sees the box as its original size and argues that its the
meter stick that must be smaller percentage of a meter long, while the
internal observer will insists that his meter stick is a meter long as
its still requires numerically the same string atoms to constitute its
length and that it the distances to the walls of the box that are more.
Try to figure out who is correct and why would you think so. The
actually answer is that its a relative thing and both could at least in
some ways be argued to be right. Later thoughts on this suggests the
hypothesis that's its indeed more space for reasons I will skip for now.
> It is both these effects together. One is of space the other is of
> time.
> It is both not one or the other. The Shapiro effect is not
> operational.
Its usually pointed out that this geometric delay is not the same as the
delay that's due to a slower time and because its in addition to this
delay its easily shown to different from it.
Actually one should get the same delay by using the axis between two
spinning masses where we will have a path where one has no geometric
curvature, but we should still have this same time delay due to the time
being slower.
Mitch, how much do you know about gravitational time dilation because
its a bit critical to the understanding of this theory. Some searches
have turned up some really intuitively easily understood ways of
explaining this, by tying light frequencies to clock ticks. A quick idea
to remember is if we used a laser with a frequency of 1 teraherts where
each teraherts i.e., trillion cycles, represents an individual clock
tick on our satellite and because light must gain energy as it travels
down it must also shift into a higher frequency more energetic photons.
Far as I know there has been no arguments for the photons shifting into
a higher frequency but also drifting apart into individual photons
spaced farther apart so that one would have a way of preserving the same
rates of time at both levels.
An alternate way of looking at this sort of time delay is by looking at
how light entering a lens where its speed is less would allow one to fit
a 1 meter long light pulse into a 1/2 meter long glass rod, before it
starts to exit the other end, if its speed is 1/2 of what it is in
vacuum. In fact this analogy with light leads me to believe the two are
related i.e., time at 1/2 of ours should contract rods also by 1/2 and
this dose not require any relative motion i.e., its not Lorentz.
Another analogy is where we have a string of runners entering a tunnel
where they slow to a walk, note how they should bunch up into a closer
stream so that more can fit more within the same tunnel before they
start to exit the other end. But also note that because we are talking
about time being slower we can argue that from the runners frame of
reference they have not stooped to a walk at all but are still running
at the same speed from their prospective. Its easy to see how they would
as a result measure the tunnel to be longer from their prospective.
Its worth pointing out that objects just starting their free fall near a
black hole should be very contracted its not so easy to show how or why
this should be the case. Unfortunately the best ways of doing this
appears to be by using moving objects along with the extra confusion it
causes.
Dale.
> Mitch Raemsch
> -- Light Falls --
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Previous message: Nick: "Re: Relativity as zombiism"
- In reply to: Mitchell: "Re: Starting out without gravity creates Boundries"
- Next in thread: Francisco Diaz Jr.: "Re: Starting out without gravity creates Boundries"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
