Everyone stands on the shoulders of those who went before - even you.
And then he went on to describe General Relativity. I suppose you think he stole that also (?)
And then he went on to describe General Relativity. I suppose you think he stole that also (?)
Thermoman
BANNED
Einstein was a pattent clerk so maybe he read it then denied the pattent , I don't know because I wasn't there!
Relativity isn't that difficult !
I do agree with you that my advanced work stands on the shoulders of ''giants'' but these giants I have to correct in some areas !
I am relieved you assert you were not there guiding Einstein's hand.
Your advanced work is what? I must have missed it. Let's discuss it (?)
Expansion is a relative motion vs a real or absolute motion.
because the vector direction of expansion is dependent on the observers location therefore the expansion is not a real expansion, just a relative measurement.
expansion is not real.
because the vector direction of expansion is dependent on the observers location therefore the expansion is not a real expansion, just a relative measurement.
- Real motion:
- Represents the true displacement of an object in space.
- Measured independently from other objects.
- Considered as the "absolute" motion.
- Represents the true displacement of an object in space.
- Relative motion:
- Describes how an object appears to move compared to another object.
- Requires a reference point to calculate the motion.
- Used to analyze the movement between two objects in a system.
- Describes how an object appears to move compared to another object.
expansion is not real.
I don't understand how the conclusion arises and I am not confident that the word 'real' - used thrice - is meant the same way in all instances
real motion is the true displacement of an object in space.
real motion can be measured independently from different objects.
expansion does not fall into the realm of real motion, as it does not fit the definition.
the expansion displacement vector is relative to the observer. each observer calculates a different direction vector of expansion . Therefore it is only a relative measurement with the appearance of motion, not a real motion.
I think I understand you to say that real motion is travel through space and that separation motion due to expansion is different,
The assertion that separation movement (universe expansion) is relative is not true. You will find that any observer in the known universe will have the same measure for the Hubble Constant.
Motion is a vector quantity because it requires both magnitude (how far something moves) and direction to be fully described;
the vector direction is different for every observer.
if two observers are on opposite sides of an object, the object will appear to move in opposite directions. Expansion motion is certainly relative.
Last edited:
I don't believe this to be true.
an accelerating/decelerating observer would measure it differently.
I don't see how that is possible.
can you explain how this could be possible?
expansion is always in the radial direction.
how can two observers in different locations, which are opposite sides of an object, measure the same vector direction of that object as each other if both see it moving in a radial direction?
how does orientation affect expansions direction when expansion is always radial?
how does parallax work if two observers in different locations can measure the same object as the same vector angles?
Last edited:
The only time two observers in different locations could record the same vector direction of expansion is if they both on the same side of the object being measured and lined up perfectly. Otherwise there will be a different vector direction of expansion. And even in this case the speed of its velocity vector will be different.
the motion is relative.
the motion is relative.
Somewhere - which thread? - I said all observers in the universe would measure the Hubble Constant as the same value. With no qualification.
My statement was incorrect. My apologies.
My statement was incorrect. My apologies.
If the motion is indeed "relative", then we must look for a "relative" mechanism of action.
we could have a local change in energy, or a local change in gravitational field, a or local change in velocity.
or all three.
but most likely the cause is local.
we dont need to look for dark energy out in deep space if the problem is right here at home.
I think that gravity is part of the cause for dark energy.
I understand that gravity waves carry away energy.
and that accelerating mass creates gravity waves.
so if quarks vibrate they would create gravitational waves that carry away some of their energy.
so i must conclude that atoms lose energy over time through the gravitational field.
less energy = less mass = less gravitational field = less lorentz contraction = expansion?
we could have a local change in energy, or a local change in gravitational field, a or local change in velocity.
or all three.
but most likely the cause is local.
we dont need to look for dark energy out in deep space if the problem is right here at home.
I think that gravity is part of the cause for dark energy.
I understand that gravity waves carry away energy.
and that accelerating mass creates gravity waves.
so if quarks vibrate they would create gravitational waves that carry away some of their energy.
so i must conclude that atoms lose energy over time through the gravitational field.
less energy = less mass = less gravitational field = less lorentz contraction = expansion?
The stability of atoms is one of the reasons why the universe as we know it is able to exist in its current form, with stable matter making up stars, planets, and everything else. If atoms were decaying due to gravitational wave emission, the structure of matter would be fundamentally different.
If a quark could cause a gravity wave within the space of an atom that wave would be so insignificant as to be easily ignored I expect.
The atom is stable nobody debating that here. But a loss of gravitational energy does not necessarily result in a loss of stability not sure how you related the two. do atoms become less stable in space?
I suspect it not only would be ignored, but invisible. and a second will still be a second.
That's the point. Gravity Waves ex Quarks is totally insignificant in any sense, gravity-wise electromagnetic -wise or any other way from any perspective I can muster.
It is your onus to show how such a tiny almost non-effect can influence gravity on a galactic scale. I can only point out that it seems extraordinarily improbable. However, I do not have the knowledge to prove
my opinion any more than I can prove that fairies do not exist on a pin-head.
Having said that perhaps you can show some credibility for the idea. Some supportive evidence. Sometimes the wildest ideas spell out the truth. (Relativity) Any further challenge from me will probably not be useful. I hope you develop your ideas to a conclusion one way or the other to your satisfaction
Perhaps you need to find some way of quantifying the macro effect of all quarks in a galaxy to show that the gravitational waves generated exceed even those generated by vibrating atoms/molecules for example. Let alone the macro disturbance from Stars etc. Good luck.
That's the point. Gravity Waves ex Quarks is totally insignificant in any sense, gravity-wise electromagnetic -wise or any other way from any perspective I can muster.
It is your onus to show how such a tiny almost non-effect can influence gravity on a galactic scale. I can only point out that it seems extraordinarily improbable. However, I do not have the knowledge to prove
my opinion any more than I can prove that fairies do not exist on a pin-head.
Having said that perhaps you can show some credibility for the idea. Some supportive evidence. Sometimes the wildest ideas spell out the truth. (Relativity) Any further challenge from me will probably not be useful. I hope you develop your ideas to a conclusion one way or the other to your satisfaction
Perhaps you need to find some way of quantifying the macro effect of all quarks in a galaxy to show that the gravitational waves generated exceed even those generated by vibrating atoms/molecules for example. Let alone the macro disturbance from Stars etc. Good luck.
the point is that nothing on a galactic scale is influenced at all nor needs to be to achieve the appearance of expansion because the motion is relative.
when our local frame of reference drops energy level and we compare now to billions of years ago a Lorentz transformation would be needed.
I have revisited this statement and realized that it resembles some of my own thoughts. I'm not sure why I didn't notice it before. I would like to express my understanding in my own words, and then you can let me know if I've grasped the concept correctly.
If time and distance are always in a 1:1 ratio, then the speed of expansion must always be at 'c', regardless of whether there is inflation or a slowdown. The speed of light will always be measured as 'c' from within that phase of expansion. However, when an observation is made from one phase to another, the speed of light may appear different.
A Lorentz Transformation will get a correct comparison.
So the speed of light has always been the same in its own context but constantly changes with expansion speed"
If this is the same idea, I apologize for the misunderstanding and will need to review some of my comments. Over to you.
The Lorentz Transformation may apply not only to speed through space but also to space stretching. Not something I had 'connected with' before
I see where you're coming from, but I have a different perspective on some of the comments in this thread. However, let's not lose sight of your main point, which is important!
Last edited:
i think we would have to incorporate the metric tensor of spacetimeI need to know which numbers you plan to use for the Lorentz equations.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 36
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram