Question Is Gravitational time dilation due to gravity?

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Apr 1, 2022
38
5
1,535
Visit site
If you were to stop the shaft at one end from rotating, eventually everything would catch up and it would look straight.
lets point the rod at the Sun

the time dilation is ~1 min per year at the surface of the sun.

lets say i rotate the shaft at 60 rpm

after one year there should be 60 winds in the rod?

If you fixed a laser to the shaft and shot a pulse of light down the shaft would it follow that winding? (Anyone at any location would see their area perfectly straight.)


would the path of the light depend on the duration the rod rotated?

if you rotated it for another year would the light path be different and have twice the windings in it?
 
Apr 1, 2022
38
5
1,535
Visit site
Yes, there would be 60 turns. Do it for another year and there would be 60 more turns. The light would not follow the helix, the light would come straight at us, only taking 8 minutes.
i guess im caught up on the "Anyone at any location would see their area perfectly straight."

after a million years there will be 60 million winds. yet still look straight?
if the lazer is fixed and rotating with the shaft but doesnt follow the helix , how can both look perfectly straight ?
light travels in a straight path and any location would see their area perfectly straight.
 
Last edited:
Apr 1, 2022
38
5
1,535
Visit site
I think i would measure both ends at the same RPM. and if someone was near the Sun they would measure both ends to be the same but faster than my measurement. The only Helix seen would be that from the 8 min SOL trip. And that light would follow that helix.
 
I think I got it wrong. The amount of twist in the rod would be limited to that which would occur due to time dilation ONLY during the amount of time it took for the 8 minutes it takes for light to get to us from the Sun, which would be about 0.3 degree. It would remain constant and not increase as time went on.
My original statement that the twist would continue indefinitely would only apply if there was a black hole at the far end of the rod, with infinite gravity at the event horizon.
 
A sudden thought from a picture I was looking at(!):
As I look at the spin of the galaxy, the spiral arms of it, and the reverse direction of the far outer limits of the arms due to slowing! trending toward the outside of the arms, I realize that the spin there, if it exists at all, is not nearly enough to throw anything out of the galaxy! The outside spin curving far away from the inside spin virtually, in fact, reverses direction of spin (an almost stop action to it) from the inside spin. Thus, it, everything in those asymptotic outside lanes of curvature slowing in spin in space and time, to virtually reversing in spin, stays, or should stay, with the galaxy always as a virtual counterclockwise motion to a clockwise motion! It's a lost track of the galaxy, there. A bounding bonding toroidal ring around the galaxy, thus a black hole-like "dark event horizon" in fact, of the galaxy proper (firmly containing the galaxy proper in its bounds)!

The lines of the lanes are . . . become . . . paralleling -- almost inwardly facing centripetal -- lines, lanes, negative to a positive interior, and not outpouring (not capable of any throwing, any tossing, out (virtually, just the opposite . . . developing from slowing and reversing materially inside-out a material strong binding force, a material Casimir-like effect, drawing from the outside-in: The outside frontier of the galaxy, in))!

Now if I can just hold onto that string-spoke into the model's hub, among so many other string-spokes.
 
Last edited:
May 18, 2024
55
8
35
Visit site
No. It is due to refraction. Just like 'gravitational' redshift and light bending.


You can't beat classical physics, Einstein thought he was smarter than every other scientist before him but he was just ignorant and illogical and all it takes is basic refraction physics to disprove his general relative theory and all its predictions.
As you can see, nobody can contest my demonstrations which completely and utterly disprove his insane meta-physics. Because then they would have to contest refraction alltogether.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts