Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

page: 12
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
Let's shift from a GPS sat to the ISS. A clock calibrated to be accurate on the ground is placed on the ISS. Naturally it will be inaccurate while in orbit. I'm told this is due to a difference in the rate of time. I have to ask what about the astronauts on board? They don't drift into the future or the past.
Just because the difference is small doesn't mean it's not different. Again I'm going to exaggerate the size of the effect and you can hopefully realize the magnitude doesn't change what's happening, just how quickly it happens. Let's say we are in a high gravity environment, higher than Earth. For every year that goes by here, 10 years go by on the ISS.

So in 1 year on "high-gravity Earth", the astronauts are 10 years older.
in 5 years on "high-gravity Earth", the astronauts are 50 years older.
So let's say it's 2018, you've aged 5 years and the astronauts have aged 50 years. It still takes less than a second for radio signals to travel from Earth to the ISS at the speed of light. In 10 years of your time, you'd be able to see their kids and grandkids ion the space station, if that was allowed. So you are the one time-traveling into the future, from their perspective, since you will be able to see things many generations after they are already dead. But this doesn't the speed of light the radio waves travel at, what it does is redshift the communication.

Our transmissions from Earth to the ISS would be extremely "red-shifted" by the time they got to the astronauts, and their transmissions to a high gravity planet would be very blue-shifted. But you could communicate with the great-great-great grandchildren of the astronauts, but the redshift causes some problems when it's that large.

Your transmission that lasted one minute would be received for a period of 10 minutes on the ISS before compensating for redshift. If they didn't compensate for red-shift, your transmission might look like a slow-motion replay. So what they would probably do, is receive your 1 minute transmission for 10 minutes and record it, then compensate for redshift by compressing the transmission so it plays in only 1 minute of their time, and then it will look normal to them.

So this is what happens when the time ratio is 10:1, and obviously the effect would be very noticeable. You seem to be thinking that since the ratio isn't that high maybe the same thing isn't happening...but it is...just not as noticeably. Since there are about 86400 seconds in a day, the actual ratio is not 10:1, but instead about 86400: (86400-0.000038). That ratio is so close to 1:1 that astronauts don't have to worry about your Earth transmission looking like a slo-mo replay, however it is slowed down a tiny bit when they receive it due to redshift, but not so much that anybody would notice except a scientist making precise measurements.
edit on 5-3-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Appreciate the effort. Hope it's not wasted on me.



Just because the difference is small doesn't mean it's not different.

I agree, that's why I thought there should be a way to verify the difference if it exists.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


If space wasnt expanding would redshift still occur? How do we know the photons we detect have been shifted in energy, and the 'redshifted' levels arent just the photons energy level? When we send a radio signal to the ISS from earth, does this signal lose strength interacting with all the molecules in its path? Does red-shifting have to do with the receiver of the photon (ISS) is moving relative to the photon, and the photons emitter, so because of the motion of the ISS it kinda "catches the signal on the run" and this causes the redshift? Same thing could be said about the observer on the earth catching a distant galaxies photon on the run, with all sorts of other things as well, like the gravitational lense of the black hole and dark matter, and the rotational,revolutional (solar), and revolutional(galactic) motions of the earth, as well as the movement of the galaxy as a whole.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by kthxbai
 




Since it isn't time that's changing, what causes the different rates that exist in the measurements.

The effects of gravitational gradients(?) on the physical processes of a timekeeping device.

Can you tell me what it is exactly that you disagree with about and why? Do you even have a clue as to what I've said in this thread?



Admittedly, I haven't read all your posts because some of them are very much off the mark and they didn't really interest me a lot. At other times, you made some good points and seemed to be gaining a good grasp of various concepts. I'm not calling you "stupid" or anything like that, I'm just saying that your present knowledge level isn't very interesting to me but you may get to that point at some time. Not "stupid" at all, please don't take it as insulting. Yes, I have a very good "clue" as to what you've said, I just haven't been addressing it as I didn't want to take the time out to offer explanations and put in the effort and work that would be required when I can see that you aren't at the point of offering ideas that would be interesting to me yet.

I'm not saying that I'm the foremost expert on the matter or anything of that nature, but I do have a better understanding than many have here. I've mostly been paying attention to Phage and Fungi as they are the ones I've seen as having merit and knowledge of the topic that I can find some interest in.

This isn't meant to insult anyone else in any way, it's just that I don't have the desire to take the time to instruct or build the knowledge level up to where it would need to be to make it interesting for me to put my time into it. It's not saying that they aren't capable of knowing, that they will never know, or anything else like that, it's just that they don't know right now and I have no desire to take the time to "teach" it.

Please don't be offended, I just have other things to do with my time and use this as a way to explore new ideas and discuss matters with people who have a similar knowledge base, not as a way to do a great deal of work to bring others up to that level when it's something they need to invest their time into and there are many resources they can use to do that.

I'm not trying to sound arrogant or diminutive or anything of that nature, please don't take it that way.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

If space wasnt expanding would redshift still occur?
I just gave an example of redshift in my last post which had nothing to do with expanding space. However the redshift from other galaxies in the Hubble relationship doesn't have this cause.


How do we know the photons we detect have been shifted in energy, and the 'redshifted' levels arent just the photons energy level?
Spectroscopy tells us light from other galaxies is red-shifted. The red-shifted photons do have a lower energy level, who said otherwise? See the reference I posted in response to the OP regarding "tired light".


When we send a radio signal to the ISS from earth, does this signal lose strength interacting with all the molecules in its path?
The GPS reference link I posted earlier showed numerous sources of errors in the GPS signal, including ionospheric effects, and tropospheric effects, including humidity, among others. Signal strength is more or less an inverse-square relationship, but that's not exactly the source of the errors.


Does red-shifting have to do with the receiver of the photon (ISS) is moving relative to the photon, and the photons emitter, so because of the motion of the ISS it kinda "catches the signal on the run" and this causes the redshift?
My exaggerated example above occurs because the photons lose energy and the wavelengths increase as they escape a gravitational field. Relative motion can cause similar things. See the wiki on "Equivalence principle", a key concept in relativity.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Appreciate the effort. Hope it's not wasted on me.
It was a fun thought experiment and I hope you get something out of it but I did by thinking about it even if you don't. It's not something I think about everyday. I left out the word "affect" in one of my edits and it's too late to edit now so insert that if you see a sentence that needs it.


I agree, that's why I thought there should be a way to verify the difference if it exists.
I think that's what the scientists with the optical clocks having only a 1/3 meter height difference were trying to do....show various ways of demonstrating relativistic effects. Relativity may be one of the most tested theories so you can find all kinds of experiments verifying it. Here are some other experiments:

Testing Einstein’s Gravitational Redshift



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 




I'm not even sure that velocity itself is a factor in the process.

It has to be. Unless you think the speed of light changes.

Another poorly crafted paragraph by me. In the context I intended, which I didn't express well, the velocity (of the planes) and process (clock rate) refer to examples like this

Considering the Hafele-Keating experiment in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, a clock aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, had a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than one that remained on the ground, while a clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's rotation, had a lower velocity than one on the ground.

en.wikipedia.org...

I can't determine an effect of velocity (at least the speed portion) on the results. They didn't test for that. There is an obvious difference from the difference in velocity (direction portion) which I suspect is due to going "with" or "against" gravity, as if it has something like momentum in the direction of rotation.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


I can't determine an effect of velocity (at least the speed portion) on the results. They didn't test for that.
It seems they did, otherwise there would be no point in flying in opposite directions.


There is an obvious difference from the difference in velocity (direction portion) which I suspect is due to going "with" or "against" gravity, as if it has something like momentum in the direction of rotation.
The only way to go "with" or "against" gravity is to gain or lose altitude. It doesn't have anything to do with horizontal motion. By flying with the rotation of Earth you gain velocity relative to the center of the Earth. That is why orbital spacecraft are launched in that direction.
edit on 3/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
I can't determine an effect of velocity (at least the speed portion) on the results. They didn't test for that. There is an obvious difference from the difference in velocity (direction portion) which I suspect is due to going "with" or "against" gravity, as if it has something like momentum in the direction of rotation.
It's with or against the Earth's rotation. Let's say at a particular latitude, the Earth's "rotation velocity" is about 900mph. If a 400mph plane flies with the rotation it's really going 1300mph, but if it flies against the rotation it's really going 900mph-400mph = 500mph.

So flying in opposite directions at 400mph at a latitude where tangential velocity of the Earth's surface is 900mph is really like comparing 500mph to 1300mph, even though it looks like a comparison of 400mph versus 400mph.

Edit: I see Phage beat me to it but I think we're saying the same thing.
edit on 5-3-2013 by Arbitrageur because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I just gave an example of redshift in my last post which had nothing to do with expanding space. However the redshift from other galaxies in the Hubble relationship doesn't have this cause.


Ok then is there a way redshift from other galaxies can be explained besides spatial expansion?


Spectroscopy tells us light from other galaxies is red-shifted. The red-shifted photons do have a lower energy level, who said otherwise?


No one said otherwise, but where does the concept of shifting come in, and how is it measured? What im asking is how do we know the galaxy didnt just emit EM radiation in the exact wavelength we detect it as? Or I guess im failing to understand that red shifting may be an unavoidable result of charges moving in a lateral direction away from us fast, so when the charge emits EM radiation this direction of velocity of the charge immediately causes the energy of the light to be weaker? whereas if there was another galaxy ahead of that one we are detecting, and they are traveling toward each other, the one we are detecting, since the charge is moving towards that direction with a specific velocity, when it emits EM radiation, the charges velocity is added to the energy of the photon detected and this is blue-shifting?



My exaggerated example above occurs because the photons lose energy and the wavelengths increase as they escape a gravitational field. Relative motion can cause similar things. See the wiki on "Equivalence principle", a key concept in relativity.


Ok, I will check it out. Is the 'losing energy as they escape gravity field' due to (only slightly as you said above the photons interaction with all the matter on its way out...but mainly) the photon traveling a different geometry of space time as it gets further from the gravitating body?



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
I can't determine an effect of velocity (at least the speed portion) on the results. They didn't test for that. There is an obvious difference from the difference in velocity (direction portion) which I suspect is due to going "with" or "against" gravity, as if it has something like momentum in the direction of rotation.
It's with or against the Earth's rotation. Let's say at a particular latitude, the Earth's "rotation velocity" is about 900mph. If a 400mph plane flies with the rotation it's really going 1300mph, but if it flies against the rotation it's really going 900mph-400mph = 500mph.


I dont understand how that makes sense. What is a speedometer on a plane set in reference to? Also if you were traveling against the rotation (even though according to you, you would be traveling slower miles per hour) you would be covering more miles in an hour, because the earths rotation will be moving the distance out of the way while you are traveling towards your destination.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Ok then is there a way redshift from other galaxies can be explained besides spatial expansion?
Yes I already said several times "Tired light", which even though Swan doesn't realize it, has a tired light hypothesis. I posted a link explaining why it's been ruled out, but it was definitely considered.



Spectroscopy tells us light from other galaxies is red-shifted. The red-shifted photons do have a lower energy level, who said otherwise?
No one said otherwise, but where does the concept of shifting come in, and how is it measured?
How many times do I have to say "spectroscopy"? We know the spectroscopic signatures of the elements (using AAS, AES, etc) so we can tell when they are not where they are supposed to be when analyzing starlight, and the difference is the redshift or blueshift. By the way this can also tell us the composition of the stars. Here are some spectroscopic signatures:


And here's how we observe them red or blue-shifted:



Ok, I will check it out. Is the 'losing energy as they escape gravity field' due to (only slightly as you said above the photons interaction with all the matter on its way out...but mainly) the photon traveling a different geometry of space time as it gets further from the gravitating body?
The latter because it would happen even if there was no atmosphere.


I dont understand how that makes sense. What is a speedometer on a plane set in reference to?
Planes can measure speed relative to the ground and the air which are usually different. Just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. They don't take into account if the ground is moving at 900 miles an hour...they just ignore that since they have no reason to consider it, but the folks at NASA have to consider it when they launch East rather than West to get the extra 900mph or whatever it is, boost.
edit on 5-3-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Yes I already said several times "Tired light", which even though Swan doesn't realize it, has a tired light hypothesis. I posted a link explaining why it's been ruled out, but it was definitely considered.


Ok, so because tired light is not true, intergalactic space is expanding? Is there an offered theory as to where the extra space is coming from?



Planes can measure speed relative to the ground and the air which are usually different. Just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. They don't take into account if the ground is moving at 900 miles an hour...they just ignore that since they have no reason to consider it, but the folks at NASA have to consider it when they launch East rather than West to get the extra 900mph or whatever it is, boost.


The boost has to do with gravity and/or centrifugal force? Or are those the same thing regarding a rotating and accelerating body?
edit on 5-3-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Ok, so because tired light is not true, intergalactic space is expanding? Is there an offered theory as to where the extra space is coming from?
There are some ideas, but let's say if we are able to figure out dark energy we'll have a better understanding. We haven't figured it out yet.


The boost has to do with gravity and/or centrifugal force? Or are those the same thing regarding a rotating and accelerating body?
I don't know where you got centrifugal force. That's a fictitious force to a physicist. There are 24 hours in a day, and you can trace the distance around the surface of the Earth at any given latitude. That is the distance that is covered in one day at the given latitude, so divide that total by 24 and you get the velocity per hour. At one of NASA's launch sites it's a little over 900mph. You could observe this motion from the moon.
edit on 5-3-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
The boost has to do with gravity and/or centrifugal force? Or are those the same thing regarding a rotating and accelerating body?


Nope, just that the Earth is spinning. If you launch towards the east, you get a starting speed that's the rotational speed of the Earth at that altitude. The closer to the equator you are, the bigger the boost.

That's why you can't put as much mass into polar or retrograde orbits, you're either getting no advantage or you're having to overcome the rotational speed of the Earth, so for retrograde launches, you generally do them closer to the poles if you can.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 




What is a speedometer on a plane set in reference to?

I'm stupid so this is probably irrelevant to your question



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
There are some ideas, but let's say if we are able to figure out dark energy we'll have a better understanding. We haven't figured it out yet.


Well dark energy is only thought to exist because its thought space is expanding. Are physicist really sure that galaxies arent moving through a nothingness of space, and that space is actually "something"? I really want to believe that because if so it makes some things easier, yet opens up a lot more questions, like if space isnt nothing, what the heck is it. Coming back to the aether again eh. Doesnt Einstein's general theory space-time having physical qualities like curvature and expansion and cosmological constant imply space is something? I like the idea of space having some physical quality, it would make gravity a lot easier to understand a la Einstein, and I even think dark matter can be the gravity fields of all bodies of a galaxy (the galaxy as a whole black hole included) warping the space they travel in so much, as they are traveling in other directions also through space and time (the stars orbiting the galaxy, but not as if the black hole was stationary and they just swung around, but as if the whole galaxy spun like a top. as it is rotating (even though its considered to have fixed points in the space-time grid) it is 'advancing' through universal space time, so this extra dimension of travel, i believe has an affect on the gravity wells of bodies in a galaxy, which can lead them to amplify, or even 'wave', and these gravity waves, or space time 'collapses' (as i like to think of it, space closing in on a prior gravity well with a force, perhaps would send some 'shock wave of space rippling') are what cause the galaxy to stay in formation. Also my idea on dark energy directly ties into looking at it this way, and I think these two things are very closely related.

So, I think as galaxies started forming (space existed before galaxies were beginning to form, and the energy quanta of the galaxies traveling away from one another was in each moment creating space) the ones that began to spiral started to interact with gravity and spiral faster and faster, I think as these galaxies rotated they would be twisting the spacetime of their local space-time grid, and this is what a black hole is, and this action done by most or all spiral galaxies was make them all repel from one another, like if you had a small pool of water, and a bunch of high powered fans with tiny motors that were right in their center, and these would spin around, and send waves outward in all directions, i think if every spiral galaxy did that, the distance between them all would expand, and as they began to be able to spiral faster and faster (maybe as time progressed and a black hole got more and more massive and could draw more mass in a closer spiral, like a ice skater bring their arms and legs in to spin fast) this caused the process to occur faster... I know this is a very sloppy way of putting things... but I think if space is some sort of physicalness (that can expand, and have energy, and can be distorted by mass), that is one possible way the universe could be, to my mind at least.




I don't know where you got centrifugal force. That's a fictitious force to a physicist. There are 24 hours in a day, and you can trace the distance around the surface of the Earth at any given latitude. That is the distance that is covered in one day at the given latitude, so divide that total by 24 and you get the velocity per hour. At one of NASA's launch sites it's a little over 900mph. You could observe this motion from the moon


K, I still dont know why earths rotation helps an orbiting craft travel faster in one way (traveling with the direction of the earths rotation)



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by ImaFungi
The boost has to do with gravity and/or centrifugal force? Or are those the same thing regarding a rotating and accelerating body?


Nope, just that the Earth is spinning. If you launch towards the east, you get a starting speed that's the rotational speed of the Earth at that altitude. The closer to the equator you are, the bigger the boost.

That's why you can't put as much mass into polar or retrograde orbits, you're either getting no advantage or you're having to overcome the rotational speed of the Earth, so for retrograde launches, you generally do them closer to the poles if you can.

?
In what manner does the rotation of the earth exhibit a force on the body that is desired to orbit the earth?



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
There are some ideas, but let's say if we are able to figure out dark energy we'll have a better understanding. We haven't figured it out yet.


Well dark energy is only thought to exist because its thought space is expanding. Are physicist really sure that galaxies arent moving through a nothingness of space, and that space is actually "something"?
Yes physicists are sure that empty space is not empty. We can characterize some of the properties of empty space. However, I also think it's safe to say these properties are only partially but not fully understood, like we don't know why some values predicted by quantum field theory are not observed, in addition to dark energy observations. So there are some mysteries to solve. And technically, it's not exactly true that "dark energy is only thought to exist because its thought space is expanding". We thought space was expanding in 1997 before the discovery of dark energy in 1998. The unexpected result in 1998 is that the expansion is accelerating...so that's the "dark energy" effect.


K, I still dont know why earths rotation helps an orbiting craft travel faster in one way (traveling with the direction of the earths rotation)
It's not that complicated, it's a 913 mph head start going East at Cape Kennedy. So it can affect payload, fuel requirements, final orbital velocity. The orbiting craft can travel the same velocity in either direction, if you give it enough fuel. But it takes a lot less fuel to go in the direction where you have a 913 mph head start. I don't see why this concept is hard.


In what manner does the rotation of the earth exhibit a force on the body that is desired to orbit the earth?
The Earth has angular momentum which results in tangential surface velocity. So it's just the result of momentum, which isn't really a force.
edit on 6-3-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

?
In what manner does the rotation of the earth exhibit a force on the body that is desired to orbit the earth?


Its easier to reach escape velocities when you go with the rotation of the earth.
That does not nean an aeoplane flying in easterly direction is moving faster wrt ground,
than when it is flying in the westerly direction.





top topics
 
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join