# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: fisherman on April 07, 2021, 02:05:29 PM

Title: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 07, 2021, 02:05:29 PM
Ever since finding this site, I have had this nagging thought that there was something fundamentally wrong with the logic behind relying on the equivalence principle to justify UA, but couldn’t  quite put my finger on it.

I wasn’t thinking about people falling off a roof, but it finally dawned on me.  Special Relativity tells us that accelerated motion warps spacetime. The faster you go, the slower time moves and objects will contract.  The equivalence principle tells us that accelerated motion and gravity are indistinguishable.  The logical conclusion then is that gravity is the warping of spacetime.

Instead, the UA crowd concludes that the EP means there is some mysterious force that is accelerating the earth (and maybe, but maybe not, everything else.) upwards.

I couldn’t find anything in the wiki that justifies this leap (no pun intended) in logic. Maybe if you took SR out of the equation, it would make some sense but that creates even more problems for UA.  Not to mention the fact that part of what makes the EP so important is that it serves a bridge between SR and GR so that SR is consistent with gravity.

Why should UA be considered a better theory for gravity when it doesn’t even logically follow from the very premise it is based on?  Not to mention the fact that it leaves so many questions unanswered that GR very elegantly solves.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 07, 2021, 07:20:57 PM
Your statement "accelerated motion warps spacetime" doesn't make much sense on its own. How is spacetime warped exactly? Can you describe it in a step-by-step physical manner instead of using it as a magic wand?

The effect of Time Dilation makes far more sense if you imagine a rocket accelerating:

GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION

“ Many of the important features of general relativity can be obtained via rather simple arguments that use the equivalence principle. The most famous of these is the thought experiment that leads to gravitational time dilation, illustrated in figure 1.1. Consider an accelerating frame. which is conventionally a rocket of height h, with a clock mounted on the roof that regularly disgorges photons towards the floor. If the rocket accelerates upwards at g, the floor acquires a speed v = gh / c in the time taken for a photon to travel from roof to floor. There will thus be a blueshift in the frequency of received photons, given by Δv / v = gh / c^2, and it is easy to see that the rate of reception of photons will increase by the same factor.

Now, since the rocket can be kept accelerating for as long as we like, and since photons cannot be stockpiled anywhere, the conclusion of an observer on the floor of the rocket is that in a real sense the clock on the roof is running fast. When the rocket stops accelerating, the clock on the roof will have gained a time Δt by comparison with an identical clock kept on the floor. Finally, the equivalence principle can be brought in to conclude that gravity must cause the same effect. Noting that ΔΦ = gh is the difference in potential between roof and floor, it is simple to generalize this to Δt / t = ΔΦ / c^2 ”

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/3/3b/Gravitational_time_dilation.png/900px-Gravitational_time_dilation.png)

“ Figure 1.1. Imagine you are in a box in free space far from any source of gravitation. If the box is made to accelerate ‘upwards’ and has a clock that emits a photon every second mounted on its roof, it is easy to see that you will receive photons more rapidly once the box accelerates (imagine yourself running into the line of oncoming photons). Now, according to the equivalence principle, the situation is exactly equivalent to the second picture in which the box sits at rest on the surface of the Earth. Since there is nowhere for the excess photons to accumulate, the conclusion has to be that clocks above us in a gravitational field run fast. ”

--

See the bolded above. If you imagine yourself accelerating into the line of oncoming photons it is apparent that physical acceleration would cause the time from the clock to appear to dilate. This is a physical explanation for why acceleration would cause time dilation, and also for why photons are blueshifted or redshifted when traveling horizontally upwards or downwards (Pound Rebka Experiment).

Can you give us a step-by-step physical explanation for how space-time is warped to do this?
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 07, 2021, 09:37:45 PM
Quote
Your statement "accelerated motion warps spacetime" doesn't make much sense on its own. How is spacetime warped exactly? Can you describe it in a step-by-step physical manner instead of using it as a magic wand?

For someone who purports to have better insight into physics than every other actual physicist in the world, it seems like special relativity shouldn’t be something you would need explained to you.  But here goes anyway...highly simplified of course.

The essence of SR is that observers in relative motion to one another will have different perceptions of distance and time. Wristwatches worn by two different people in relative motion will move at different rates. Two people in motion relative to one another will not measure the same lengths using the same tape measure.  This is because if two people are moving relative to another, light takes longer to reach one person than the other.  Speed of light is constant, but it must travel different distances to reach each person.  The constant speed of light also effects the relativity of space because speed is distance divided by time.  If two observers don’t agree on speed or time, they aren’t going to agree on distance. Another related concept is that everything is always moving through time.  You can’t separate the two.  A parked car is moving through time only, but when it starts up and drives away, it also begins moving through space, so some of the energy directed to moving through time is diverted to moving it through space.  The faster it goes, more energy is diverted moving through space than time, so time begins to slow for the car.  It isn’t moving through time as fast as when it was parked.

This is essentially how acceleration “warps” spacetime.  The greater the relative velocity of the two observers, the more their observations of space and time will differ.  If the same spacetime is different for two different observers, it can be described as “warped” much the same way a piece of lumber is considered warped. If it doesn’t look straight and flat from every angle, it is warped.  If spacetime is experienced differently from different "angles" or frames of reference, it is warped.

That’s about as simple as I can make it.

Gravitational time dilation, in GR and time dilation in SR are two completely different concepts with different causes.(although they can occur at the same time, like with GPS satellites)  So as pretty as your illustrations are, they have nothing to do with how accelerated motion in SR warps space time.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 07, 2021, 09:46:50 PM
Quote from: fisherman
The faster it goes, more energy is diverted moving through space than time, so time begins to slow for the car.  It isn’t moving through time as fast as when it was parked.

This is essentially how acceleration “warps” spacetime.

That is not a step-by-step physical explanation. You are just saying that it happens. You can't explain how it happens, or show direct evidence that it happens. You can only say that it happens. Your description involves the assumption of "space-time", where acceleration "diverts energy to space", "causing time to slow down," in an ad-hoc untestable explanation which does not have fundamental experimentation behind it.

How does acceleration "divert more energy to space than time" exactly? Why should that cause time to slow down? How does space "warp" and cause time to slow down when more acceleration energy is present exactly? You are introducing a lot of mechanistic questions there.

Is there a device we can buy to manipulate or see into spacetime to measure this energy, or is there a device which can manipulate and see into the fabric of space and how much it is bending? Or do we just have to take your word for it?

You can't show how we know that space is manipulated in this way. You can only claim this fanciful mechanism which has nearly zero direct supporting evidence. If you can't verify this spacetime mechanism by experiment, and can only claim it, then you may as well be invoking magic and mysticism to do this. Not to rain on your parade, but this mechanism is not as proven and demonstrated as other theories in science. We know how chemicals react because we can test them and manipulate them. The same can't be said about the manipulation of spacetime.

The scenario of being in an accelerating rocket and hitting a line of photons at an accelerating pace is a physical mechanism that we can understand from A to Z. What you proposed is no such explanation that we can understand with any clarity. It is not a physical mechanism because you can't test it or manipulate it by physical means. You can only say it. You can only invoke an allegedly hidden layer of reality that we can't touch or experiment with.

There is, indeed, basic fundamental experimentation showing that when you accelerate into objects they approach you at an accelerating pace. There is no basic fundamental experimentation which manipulates "space-time" to demonstrate the basis of your scenario, however.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Bikini Polaris on April 07, 2021, 10:15:54 PM
It is my understanding that UA plays along with SR. Gravity is a force in UA, like gravity from stars and planets, but that's very faint. UA states the surface we are on has a negligible gravity due to mass and the rest is just acceleration from an undefined force, which keeps pushing this "special" plane since the dawn of time. But on other planets, like Mars, gravity works as Einstein says.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 08, 2021, 01:14:01 AM
Quote
That is not a step-by-step physical explanation. You are just saying that it happens. You can't explain how it happens, or show direct evidence that it happens. You can only say that it happens. Your description involves the assumption of "space-time", where acceleration "diverts energy to space", "causing time to slow down," in an ad-hoc untestable explanation which does not have fundamental experimentation behind it.

I explained exactly how it works.  As the relative velocity between two observers increase, how each perceives time and space becomes increasingly different and more distorted.  Perhaps this analogy will help.

Imagine a cylindrical carnival ride that is rotating faster and faster and you are pinned to the perimeter.

Now imagine there is another passenger in the center of the cylinder.  Every time the ride rotates, you will travel the full circumference of the cylinder, but the person in the middle hardly moves.   If the ride is rotating fast enough, the person in the middle will observe  you contract in length and your wristwatch running slower because your velocities are different. The faster the ride goes, the the person in the middle will watch you get shorter and shorter and your watch get slower and slower.  With the increased acceleration, the “spacetime” inside of the ride becomes more and more distorted.

Quote
How does acceleration "divert more energy to space than time" exactly? Why should that cause time to slow down? How does space "warp" and cause time to slow down when more acceleration energy is present exactly? You are introducing a lot of mechanistic questions there.

It works the same way that the relative speed between directions changes when you change directions. (IOW, when your velocity changes and you are, by definition, accelerating)  I know that’s not very well put, so here’s another analogy.

If you’re speeding along going directly north at 65 mph and then merge onto the highway going northeast,(you've changed direction so you are accelerating) the speed that is moving you north will decrease as some of it is diverted to move you east.  You are going slower in the north direction and covering less ground "northward" than you were before you merged.

Now think of “speed” as the energy available to move a car through spacetime, let’s call it 65 newtons just to keep things consistent. “Time” is the north direction and space is the “east” direction.  If it’s sitting still, according to my analogy, it would be the same as a car moving a steady 65 mph directly north.  65 newtons of energy are being expended to move the car through time (north). When it starts up and begins moving, some of those newtons will have to be diverted to move it through space (east). Let’s say 50 newtons of the energy will move it through time and 15 newtons of energy would be moving it through space.  As the car begins to move faster and faster through space, more newtons will be expended moving it through space and less dedicated to time.   Just like our car, the more it turns in an easterly direction , more of its speed is dedicated to moving east and less to north .  The more of its speed  that is dedicated to moving it east (space), the more ground it covers in the east direction  and the less “ground” it covers in the north direction (time).  Covering less “ground” in time means time is moving slower.

If the car’s speed keeps increasing, then eventually all of the energy will be dedicated to moving through space and time will stop.  Just like if a car keeps increasing its easterly direction, eventually all of its speed is moving it in an east direction and it is no longer going north.

Slowing of time due to acceleration has been experimentally proven plenty of times, but if you want to deny the validity of SR, that’s fine by me.  You might want to update your wiki, though and find another explanation as to why an earth constantly accelerating at 1g doesn’t exceed the speed of light. Or maybe we are moving faster than c.  After all, UA isn’t based on any known or accepted laws of physics.  I believe you said so yourself.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/

https://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/strong/phy140/lecture32_01.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 08, 2021, 01:22:38 AM
Quote
It is my understanding that UA plays along with SR. Gravity is a force in UA, like gravity from stars and planets, but that's very faint. UA states the surface we are on has a negligible gravity due to mass and the rest is just acceleration from an undefined force, which keeps pushing this "special" plane since the dawn of time. But on other planets, like Mars, gravity works as Einstein says.

Gravity and special relativity didn't play well together when Einstein first introduced it. SR directly contradicted Newtonian gravity as an "instantaneous" force That's the reason Einstein worked so hard to come up with general relativity and it is the EP that allowed him to make gravity compatible with SR.

I'd have to think about it, but off the top of my head I can't think of any reason why UA would contradict SR.  In fact, it needs it to explain why the earth isn't accelerating at greater than c.  It's only when you start getting into the nature of gravity (general relativity)that the problems start.  SR doesn't really address that, not directly anyway.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: jack44556677 on April 08, 2021, 01:35:40 PM
@fisherman

"The equivalence principle tells us that accelerated motion and gravity are indistinguishable."

Not really, but this is a common misconception.

They are, in fact, easily distinguishable :  tom has an excellent diagram showing this in a hanging, falling, and resting water balloon that, despite my best efforts, I couldn't find :(

Gravity does not equal acceleration.

Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 08, 2021, 10:00:27 PM
Quote
@fisherman

"The equivalence principle tells us that accelerated motion and gravity are indistinguishable."

Not really, but this is a common misconception.

They are, in fact, easily distinguishable :  tom has an excellent diagram showing this in a hanging, falling, and resting water balloon that, despite my best efforts, I couldn't find :(

Gravity does not equal acceleration.

Jack, you don't believe that gravity and acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable and that's fine.  My question was directed to those that do believe it.  And whether or not it is actually true really isn't the point anyway.

The question is essentially, if you believe that gravity and acceleration are equivalent, why does it make sense, logically, to reject GR in favor of UA?
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: scomato on April 09, 2021, 12:42:23 AM
I believe that gravity is actually the warping of spacetime by large masses such as the Earth and the Sun. As John Wheeler puts it, "Space-time tells matter how to move; matter tells space-time how to curve." Using the example below, an inertial observer passing through the object warping spacetime experiences a straight-line path (straight at first, but then straight down towards the center of the mass) it's just that spacetime itself is warped.

(https://i.imgur.com/O19buBj.gif)

This video explains everything much better than I can, it is fantastic and explains things in a way that can be understood by even children. It goes into a lot of stuff that Flat Earthers might find intriguing to learn about, and he uses the exact same analogy of an accelerating rocketship example that is thrown around in this thread. It is only 17 minutes long, trust me it's worth the time.

Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2021, 01:58:37 AM
Accelerating Rocket vs. SR

What would be the point of explaining the time dilation that would occur in an accelerating rocket, where a clock on the ceiling runs fast, with SR's spacetime warping when time dilation is also explained through the non-SR example of the rocket accelerating into the photons?

Experiments involving photon-emitting particles in a particle accelerator which accelerate towards the detector are approaching the detector at an accelerating rate, and any time dilation seen from the photons is no different than the accelerating rocket example. There are likely other explanations for those experiments than jumping to the conclusion that 'spacetime warped and caused time dilation'.

Accelerating Rocket vs. GR

If GR and the Equivalence Principle is explained as being physically identical in every way to the effects in an upwardly accelerating rocket, it is clear that it makes more sense that the Earth is accelerating upwards than the explanation that 'space is bending' in a hidden untestable layer of reality. GR only exists because the physical conclusion of an upwardly accelerating earth can't be explained with RE Theory.

Non-local effects are of questionable veracity (https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity).

UA and the Speed of Light Limit

The speed of light limit is a concept from SR. If we discard SR then there is no speed limit. Why should the universe have a "speed limit"? Is there any experimental evidence for that?

A look at the Sagnac Experiments (https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment) shows that the speed of light is actually c +/- v, where v is the velocity of the moving emitter. The speed of light as a maximum velocity of c is the Special Relativity theoretical interpretation of the Michelson Morley Experiment (https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment) which saw that Earth was motionless on a horizontal plane.

These theories were created to explain why the Earth seems to be horizontally motionless and accelerating upwards.

"The equivalence principle tells us that accelerated motion and gravity are indistinguishable."

Not really, but this is a common misconception.

They are, in fact, easily distinguishable :  tom has an excellent diagram showing this in a hanging, falling, and resting water balloon that, despite my best efforts, I couldn't find :(

You appear to be referring to this:

(https://i.imgur.com/JvW4FkL.png)
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: jack44556677 on April 09, 2021, 03:19:35 AM
You appear to be referring to this:

(https://i.imgur.com/JvW4FkL.png)

That's the one. I spent an embarrassingly long time searching through old posts for it (I thought it was black and white too, memory can leave things to be desired...)

Thanks a lot!
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 09, 2021, 06:28:51 AM
Quote
What would be the point of explaining the time dilation that would occur in an accelerating rocket, where a clock on the ceiling runs fast, with SR's spacetime warping when time dilation is also explained through the non-SR example of the rocket accelerating into the photons?

The “accelerating rocket” excerpt you posted is special relativity.  The whole excerpt is essentially my argument.

Everything the author describes prior to “Finally, the equivalence principle can be brought in to conclude that gravity must cause the same effect” is describing the warping of spacetime due to SR.  If the clock on the roof has a different time than the clock on the floor, the spacetime inside the rocket has been warped due to the acceleration of the rocket.

Then the author gets into his explanation of GTD by introducing the EP.

“Finally, the equivalence principle can be brought in to conclude that gravity must cause the same effect”
.  IOW, prior to this, the EP has not been taken into account, but once it is, the logical conclusion is that gravity causes the same effect as what was previously described (spacetime warp).

Its exactly my argument.  The EP is what bridges SR and GR.  If you accept the EP, you can’t logically reject either one of them. Its like saying there’s a bridge between points a and b but points a and b don’t exist. If gravity is the equivalent of acceleration and acceleration induces warp of spacetime, then gravity induces the warp of spacetime.  Once the relationship between gravity and spacetime warp is established, its easy to explain why it appears that massive objects appear to attract one another.

Quote
The speed of light limit is a concept from SR. If we discard SR then there is no speed limit. Why should the universe have a "speed limit"? Is there any experimental evidence for that?

If you want to suggest that exceeding c is possible, go for it.  Keep in mind you would be explicitly acknowledging UA violates the most basic principle of known physics and it would be intellectually dishonest to try and defend it with known physics.  You’d need to change your wiki and admit UA results in the earth exceeding c and explain why we don’t observe effects prior to their cause occurring.  That’s the paradox that exceeding c would cause.

Quote
You appear to be referring to this:

Now I’m really confused.  Do you or don’t you agree that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable?  Jack seems to think you don’t.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Bikini Polaris on April 09, 2021, 08:21:36 AM
These theories were created to explain why the Earth seems to be horizontally motionless and accelerating upwards.

If this plane is going upwards at a speed which is, hands waving, ginormous, how's that we are not hit by debris from space at an equally ginormous speed? Or how's that we aren't leaving behind nearby planets?
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 09, 2021, 09:49:38 AM
If this plane is going upwards at a speed which is, hands waving, ginormous, how's that we are not hit by debris from space at an equally ginormous speed?
Universal Acceleration is (mostly) universal. Velocity is relative.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2021, 02:12:38 PM
Accelerating Rocket vs. SR

The quote and illustration I provided in the second post of this thread with the rocket accelerating into the line of photons of the clock shows how the effect of time dilation can be explained to occur from the act of acceleration of the rocket into the photons, without using any spacetime-bending explanations. Once again, if time dilation can be explained without the spacetime-bending, why do we need the spacetime-bending?

Equivalence Principle

The Equivalence Principle which postulates the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is not specifically tied to General Relativity. In fact, Einstein came up with the Equivalence Principle 8 years before he came up with GR (as mentioned in the PBS EP video (https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration#PBS_Equivalence_Principle_Video)). GR incorporates it. Newton and Galileo also had their own theories of equivalence to explain why bodies of different masses and substances fell at the same rate, long before Einstein was born.

Speed of Light Limit

There is a physicist cited on the Signac Experiment page who states that light can be faster than c in the Sagnac and Wang Experiments. I don't see how it is clear that there is a universal speed limit of c when there are experiments which contradict that idea.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment

Quote
José Croca
On p.306 of the book Unified Field Mechanics II we find a paper (Archive) by Physicist José R. Croca, Ph.D. (bio), where we see:

“  Since the realization of this [Sagnac] experiment, which has been done with photons [25], electrons [26] and neutrons [27], many trials have been made to interpret the observed results seen, for instance, Selleri [28]. Indeed, Sagnac utilized the habitual linear additive rule and with that he was able to correctly predict the observed results. Still, since his prediction lead to velocities greater than c and consequently are against relativity which claims that the maximal possible velocity is c this raised a large amount of arguing. In fact, many authors tried to explain the results of the experiment in the framework of relativity which assumed that the maximal possible velocity is c. As can be seen in the literature, there are almost as many explanations as the authors that have tried to explain the results in the framework of relativity. In some cases the same author [29] presents even more than one possible explanation. The complexity of the problem stems mainly from the fact that the experiment is done in a rotating platform. In such case, there may occur a possible accelerating effect leading the explanation of the experiment to fall in the framework of general relativity.

This controversy, whether Sagnac experiment is against or in accordance with relativity, was settled recently by R. Wang et al. [30] with a very interesting experimental setup they called linear Sagac interferometer. In this case the platform is still, what moves is a single mode optical fiber coil, Fig. 12.

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/4/47/Wang-diagram.png/450px-Wang-diagram.png)

They did the experiment with a 50 meter length linear interferometer with wheels of 30 cm. The observed relative phase shift difference for the two beams of light following in opposite directions along the optical fiber was indeed dependent only on the length of the interferometer and consequently independent of the angular velocity of the wheels. From the experimental results obtained with the linear Sagnac interferometer one is lead to conclude that in this particular case the linear additive rule applies. Consequently we may have velocities greater than c, which clearly shows that relativity is not adequate to describe this specific physical process. ”
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 09, 2021, 03:59:29 PM
Quote
The quote and illustration I provided in the second post of this thread with the rocket accelerating into the line of photons of the clock shows how the effect of time dilation can be explained to occur from the act of acceleration of the rocket into the photons, without using any spacetime-bending explanations. Once again, if time dilation can be explained without the spacetime-bending, why do we need the spacetime-bending?

No it doesn’t and I explained why.  It plainly describes the bending of spacetime.

Quote
the conclusion of an observer on the floor of the rocket is that in a real sense the clock on the roof is running fast. When the rocket stops accelerating, the clock on the roof will have gained a time Δt by comparison with an identical clock kept on the floor.

That is a description of the warping of spacetime.  Time is moving at a different rate at the roof than on the floor.  That means spacetime is warped.  If the front of your car is moving at a faster rate than the tail end, your frame is bent.

Quote
The Equivalence Principle which postulates the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is not specifically tied to General Relativity. In fact, Einstein came up with the Equivalence Principle 8 years before he came up with GR (as mentioned in the PBS EP video). GR incorporates it. Newton and Galileo also had their own theories of equivalence to explain why bodies of different masses and substances fell at the same rate, long before Einstein was born.

No, we’ve been down this road before.  Einstein’s EP asserts that gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same thing.  I quoted him saying that.  You didn’t address that.  I also suggested that if you accept the fact that gravity is not a force, then logically there can be no distinction gravitational mass and inertial mass.  If gravity is not a force it can’t effect the motion of mass.  Mass can’t respond to or resist a non-force. You never addressed that either.

So I’ll try another way.  If the guy in the spaceship who doesn’t know if he is accelerating or in gravitational field steps on a scale...how does he know if he is measuring his gravitational mass or inertial mass?

Of course Einstein was aware of the Newtonian and Galilean observations that all objects fall at the same rate.  What he came up with is a better explanation...or really just an explanation for it at all.  Prior it had just been regarded as a coincidence.  Which theory is better do you think? One that just chalks something up to being a coincidence or one that explains the coincidence?  Note in my OP I didn’t ask why GR is right or UA is wrong.  I asked why UA should be considered a better theory when UA leaves so many things unexplained or just a coincidence.

Quote
In such a theory, inertial mass and gravitational mass are not just accidentally numerically equal, they are ontologically identical. As a result, general relativity is far more exposed to falsification than Newtonian theory, which is to say, general relativity is a much stronger theory.

https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath582/kmath582.htm
Quote
There is a physicist cited on the Signac Experiment page who states that light can be faster than c in the Sagnac and Wang Experiments. I don't see how it is clear that there is a universal speed limit of c when there are experiments which contradict that idea.

Saying that the speed of light can be increased or could be higher than c isn’t the same thing as saying it isn’t constant or more importantly, that matter can exceed the speed of light, whatever it is.  Can we add that to the list of unknowns?
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Action80 on April 09, 2021, 04:25:44 PM
Quote
Your statement "accelerated motion warps spacetime" doesn't make much sense on its own. How is spacetime warped exactly? Can you describe it in a step-by-step physical manner instead of using it as a magic wand?

For someone who purports to have better insight into physics than every other actual physicist in the world, it seems like special relativity shouldn’t be something you would need explained to you.  But here goes anyway...highly simplified of course.

The essence of SR is that observers in relative motion to one another will have different perceptions of distance and time. Wristwatches worn by two different people in relative motion will move at different rates. Two people in motion relative to one another will not measure the same lengths using the same tape measure.  This is because if two people are moving relative to another, light takes longer to reach one person than the other.  Speed of light is constant, but it must travel different distances to reach each person.  The constant speed of light also effects the relativity of space because speed is distance divided by time.  If two observers don’t agree on speed or time, they aren’t going to agree on distance. Another related concept is that everything is always moving through time.  You can’t separate the two.  A parked car is moving through time only, but when it starts up and drives away, it also begins moving through space, so some of the energy directed to moving through time is diverted to moving it through space.  The faster it goes, more energy is diverted moving through space than time, so time begins to slow for the car.  It isn’t moving through time as fast as when it was parked.

This is essentially how acceleration “warps” spacetime.  The greater the relative velocity of the two observers, the more their observations of space and time will differ.  If the same spacetime is different for two different observers, it can be described as “warped” much the same way a piece of lumber is considered warped. If it doesn’t look straight and flat from every angle, it is warped.  If spacetime is experienced differently from different "angles" or frames of reference, it is warped.

That’s about as simple as I can make it.

Gravitational time dilation, in GR and time dilation in SR are two completely different concepts with different causes.(although they can occur at the same time, like with GPS satellites)  So as pretty as your illustrations are, they have nothing to do with how accelerated motion in SR warps space time.
I have a question concerning your explanation.

Specifically, the issue of acceleration and relative velocity of two observers.

Are you supposing 1)the acceleration; and, 2) relative velocity: of the two observers is the same in this scenario?

Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2021, 04:53:05 PM
Quote
The quote and illustration I provided in the second post of this thread with the rocket accelerating into the line of photons of the clock shows how the effect of time dilation can be explained to occur from the act of acceleration of the rocket into the photons, without using any spacetime-bending explanations. Once again, if time dilation can be explained without the spacetime-bending, why do we need the spacetime-bending?

No it doesn’t and I explained why.  It plainly describes the bending of spacetime.

Quote
the conclusion of an observer on the floor of the rocket is that in a real sense the clock on the roof is running fast. When the rocket stops accelerating, the clock on the roof will have gained a time Δt by comparison with an identical clock kept on the floor.

That is a description of the warping of spacetime.  Time is moving at a different rate at the roof than on the floor.  That means spacetime is warped.  If the front of your car is moving at a faster rate than the tail end, your frame is bent.

Incorrect. It doesn't say that the scenario on the left hand side of the image is caused by Special Relativity or "spacetime bending". It clearly says that it occurs simply because the rocket is accelerating into the photons, causing time of the clock to appear to speed up.

GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION

“ Many of the important features of general relativity can be obtained via rather simple arguments that use the equivalence principle. The most famous of these is the thought experiment that leads to gravitational time dilation, illustrated in figure 1.1. Consider an accelerating frame. which is conventionally a rocket of height h, with a clock mounted on the roof that regularly disgorges photons towards the floor. If the rocket accelerates upwards at g, the floor acquires a speed v = gh / c in the time taken for a photon to travel from roof to floor. There will thus be a blueshift in the frequency of received photons, given by Δv / v = gh / c^2, and it is easy to see that the rate of reception of photons will increase by the same factor.

Now, since the rocket can be kept accelerating for as long as we like, and since photons cannot be stockpiled anywhere, the conclusion of an observer on the floor of the rocket is that in a real sense the clock on the roof is running fast. When the rocket stops accelerating, the clock on the roof will have gained a time Δt by comparison with an identical clock kept on the floor. Finally, the equivalence principle can be brought in to conclude that gravity must cause the same effect. Noting that ΔΦ = gh is the difference in potential between roof and floor, it is simple to generalize this to Δt / t = ΔΦ / c^2 ”

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/3/3b/Gravitational_time_dilation.png/900px-Gravitational_time_dilation.png)

“ Figure 1.1. Imagine you are in a box in free space far from any source of gravitation. If the box is made to accelerate ‘upwards’ and has a clock that emits a photon every second mounted on its roof, it is easy to see that you will receive photons more rapidly once the box accelerates (imagine yourself running into the line of oncoming photons). Now, according to the equivalence principle, the situation is exactly equivalent to the second picture in which the box sits at rest on the surface of the Earth. Since there is nowhere for the excess photons to accumulate, the conclusion has to be that clocks above us in a gravitational field run fast. ”

While this example is using an Accelerating Rocket in corporeal space versus General Relativity, it is easy to see that it also applies to a comparison with the spacetime warping of Special Relativity which also purports to explain this effect. This effect simply doesn't need Special Relativity or space-time bending because we can explain it as the rocket accelerating into the photons and observing that they approach at an increasing rate, and that time from the clock seems to quicken.

Here is another quote:

The Five Ages of the Universe: Inside the Physics of Eternity

In this book its authors describe gravitational time dilation by giving an analogy of an accelerating rocket in space which contains a clock attached to the ceiling and an astronaut sitting on the floor of the rocket with another clock. The astronaut on the floor first observes his own clock, and then observes the ceiling clock:

Quote
however, he observes that the ceiling clock is running faster. The ceiling clock sends a tone (in the form of a radio wave) down to the floor. Because the floor is accelerating upwards, it intercepts the radio wave sooner than if the rocket were merely coasting along. If the acceleration continues, subsequent tones also arrive earlier than expected. In the viewpoint of the astronaut on the floor, the ceiling clock is broadcasting its time intervals at an increased rate, and is running fast compared to the floor clock.

According to the equivalence principle, the phenomenon of mismatched clock rates, which occurs in response to the acceleration of a rocket, also occurs in a uniform gravitational field. The equivalence principle therefore insists on a seemingly bizarre conclusion. Two clocks at different heights above Earth's surface must measure the flow of time at different rates. This strange behavior is an intrinsic feature of gravity. The variation of the flow of time within a gravitational field is entirely independent of the mechanism used to measure time. Atomic clocks, quartz watches, and biological rhythms all experience the passage of time to be dilated or compressed in the same manner.

See the bolded above. It is not describing space-time warping to create this time dilating effect. It is describing a rocket accelerating into photons, exactly like the previous example. Spacetime manipulation is not needed for time dilation.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 09, 2021, 06:17:13 PM
Quote
Incorrect. It doesn't say that the scenario on the left hand side of the image is caused by Special Relativity or "spacetime bending". It clearly says that it occurs simply because the rocket is accelerating into the photons, causing time of the clock to appear to speed up.

IOW, it describes exactly what we’d expect to see if spacetime was warped by acceleration. Accelerating objects and differences in time.

You can’t always expect things to be explicitly stated and handed to you on a silver platter.  Sometimes you have to draw logical conclusions from the evidence.  If you came home with trash strewn about and last night’s leftovers all over the dog’s face, what conclusion would you draw?

The fact that the clocks show two different times while accelerating is evidence that spacetime is warped...because that is exactly what we expect to happen if spacetime is warped...accelerating objects showing different times.

If you don’t think that is the logical conclusion, why not?

@action80...I’ll have to get back to you later.  Tom’s comment was easier to respond to and I want to think about how I respond to you so I don’t cause any confusion. Maybe later this evening.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2021, 07:07:09 PM
Quote
Incorrect. It doesn't say that the scenario on the left hand side of the image is caused by Special Relativity or "spacetime bending". It clearly says that it occurs simply because the rocket is accelerating into the photons, causing time of the clock to appear to speed up.

IOW, it describes exactly what we’d expect to see if spacetime was warped by acceleration. Accelerating objects and differences in time.

You can’t always expect things to be explicitly stated and handed to you on a silver platter.  Sometimes you have to draw logical conclusions from the evidence.  If you came home with trash strewn about and last night’s leftovers all over the dog’s face, what conclusion would you draw?

The fact that the clocks show two different times while accelerating is evidence that spacetime is warped...because that is exactly what we expect to happen if spacetime is warped...accelerating objects showing different times.

If you don’t think that is the logical conclusion, why not?

@action80...I’ll have to get back to you later.  Tom’s comment was easier to respond to and I want to think about how I respond to you so I don’t cause any confusion. Maybe later this evening.

You are just saying "draw a logical conclusion." It is not logical that we must assume this to explain the effect. Why invoke a hidden untestable layer of reality when the effect can be described elsewise?

If SR and space bending did not exist and this rocket scenario was occurring in the pre-relativity concept of corporeal space, would this time dilation effect occur?

A clock on the ceiling of the rocket is ticking and broadcasting a line of photons at a rate of one per second (or whatever rate). Would accelerating into that line of photons cause them to seem to speed up to the observer?

Yes or No?

If yes, then there is no reason to invoke bending spacetime to explain it. If no, then why not?
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 09, 2021, 07:27:39 PM
Quote
If SR and space bending did not exist and this rocket scenario was occurring in the pre-relativity concept of corporeal space, would this time dilation effect occur?

A clock on the ceiling of the rocket is ticking and broadcasting a line of photons at a rate of one per second (or whatever rate). Would accelerating into that line of photons cause them to seem to speed up to the observer like in the analogy?

Yes or No?

Of course. If SR hadn't been developed yet, we just wouldn't understand why.

Experiments like this were designed to confirm SR.  Prior to SR they weren't the type of experiments anybody had a reason to do.  SR predicted time dilation and so scientists figured out ways to make objects accelerate relative to one another and measure time to see if there was any differences.

And there were differences.  Just like SR predicted. And not just any differences, but exactly the differences you would expect based on the math of curved space time.

Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2021, 07:29:59 PM
No. I am invoking a universe where SR and spacetime bending does not exist. Spacetime warping is impossible in this universe, because it is nonexistent, like the pre-relativistic concept of space.

In this space, would accelerating into a line of photons that are emitted one second apart cause them to seem to appear to arrive in a shorter time span than one second apart from each other, or not?
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 09, 2021, 08:40:49 PM
Quote
No. I am invoking a universe where SR and spacetime bending does not exist. Spacetime warping is impossible in this universe, because it is nonexistent, like the pre-relativistic concept of space.

In this space, would accelerating into a line of photons that are emitted one second apart cause them to seem to appear to arrive in a shorter time span than one second apart from each other, or not?

Your question makes no sense. What you are asking is essentially, if it didn't exist, would it still exist?

Just because we weren't aware of spacetime warping in "pre-relativistic" time, doesn't mean it didn't exist. There has been no time in history when that experiment could have been conducted and not have the same result.  Pre SR, we wouldn't have had an explanation for it, but the result would have been the same.

By your logic a compass wouldn't have worked until we figured out electromagnetism.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2021, 12:51:20 AM
So you won't consider a scenario in Newtonian space, and proclaim that you won't consider it because it doesn't exist? Sounds like avoidance to me.

It is clear from these types of responses that you know that this would work, and are trying to avoid admitting that.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 10, 2021, 01:14:44 AM
So you won't consider a scenario in Newtonian space, and proclaim that you won't consider it because it doesn't exist? Sounds like avoidance to me.

It is clear from these types of responses that you know that this would work, and are trying to avoid admitting that.

Its clear from your question that you are very confused.  Space time warp existed in Newtonian space. Just because nobody was aware of doesn't mean it didn't exist.

I gave as direct answer as possible given the illogical premise of the question.  What part of "At no time in history would this experiment have different results" don't you understand?"

If the ancient Greeks had some reason to do it and figured how to do it using pebbles and sundials, they would have gotten the same results.  They would have been surprised and confused.  Modern scientists were not surprised (except maybe by the fact that they correctly predicted it) or confused because it was what they thought would happen.

Effects can exist and be observed without understanding the cause.

Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 10, 2021, 01:22:10 AM
Quote
I have a question concerning your explanation.

Specifically, the issue of acceleration and relative velocity of two observers.

Are you supposing 1)the acceleration; and, 2) relative velocity: of the two observers is the same in this scenario?

I didn't mean to blow you off earlier, but at first I didn't understand your question.  Then I realized I had been sloppily using the word acceleration to mean motion. Shame on me.  :'(

Anyway, SR deals only with inertial motion, not acceleration in its strict sense.  So no, the acceleration of the two objects can't be different because neither is accelerating.

Their velocities can be different though.  They can be moving at different constant speeds in different straight line directions.  The greater the difference in their velocities', the greater the time and space difference will be.

EDIT: To clarify,  they must be moving in different straight lines and different constant speeds.  Otherwise the aren't moving relative to one another and the concept only applies to objects that are moving relative to one another.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: stevecanuck on April 10, 2021, 06:00:47 PM
Ever since finding this site, I have had this nagging thought that there was something fundamentally wrong with the logic behind relying on the equivalence principle to justify UA, but couldn’t  quite put my finger on it.

I wasn’t thinking about people falling off a roof, but it finally dawned on me.  Special Relativity tells us that accelerated motion warps spacetime. The faster you go, the slower time moves and objects will contract.  The equivalence principle tells us that accelerated motion and gravity are indistinguishable.  The logical conclusion then is that gravity is the warping of spacetime.

Instead, the UA crowd concludes that the EP means there is some mysterious force that is accelerating the earth (and maybe, but maybe not, everything else.) upwards.

I couldn’t find anything in the wiki that justifies this leap (no pun intended) in logic. Maybe if you took SR out of the equation, it would make some sense but that creates even more problems for UA.  Not to mention the fact that part of what makes the EP so important is that it serves a bridge between SR and GR so that SR is consistent with gravity.

Why should UA be considered a better theory for gravity when it doesn’t even logically follow from the very premise it is based on?  Not to mention the fact that it leaves so many questions unanswered that GR very elegantly solves.

Another problem with UA simulating gravity is that for a flat-disk earth to be pushed without flipping, one of two things must be so. Either the earth has to be perfectly symmetrical AND perfectly weight-balanced, or UA has to exert uneven force on the bottom to account for the asymmetrical weight distribution of land and water. I have never seen this addressed.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2021, 07:29:45 PM
Quote from: fisherman
Its clear from your question that you are very confused.  Space time warp existed in Newtonian space. Just because nobody was aware of doesn't mean it didn't exist.

This has nothing to do with a requirement of bending spacetime to make this happen.

You are in a long spacecraft under zero gravity. A line of water droplets is traveling from one end of the spaceship towards you, hitting you at a rate of 1 drop per second:

(https://i.imgur.com/ELuDHkL.png)

You then accelerate towards the drops. Will you experience the water droplets hitting you at a rate quicker than 1 drop per second? Yes or No?

(https://i.imgur.com/huSwpwu.png)

This scenario has nothing to do with bending spacetime.

This scenario has nothing to do with Einstein's theories.

This scenario replaces photons with water droplets. Will they hit you at a rate quicker than 1 drop per second when you accelerate into them? YES OR NO?

Please, let us all hear you avoid directly answering the logical question poised above again.

Another problem with UA simulating gravity is that for a flat-disk earth to be pushed without flipping, one of two things must be so. Either the earth has to be perfectly symmetrical AND perfectly weight-balanced, or UA has to exert uneven force on the bottom to account for the asymmetrical weight distribution of land and water. I have never seen this addressed.

We already know from human experience that it is possible for things to be pushed without flipping. I am sure that you can think of ways for it to happen on your own.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: stevecanuck on April 10, 2021, 09:09:22 PM

Another problem with UA simulating gravity is that for a flat-disk earth to be pushed without flipping, one of two things must be so. Either the earth has to be perfectly symmetrical AND perfectly weight-balanced, or UA has to exert uneven force on the bottom to account for the asymmetrical weight distribution of land and water. I have never seen this addressed.

We already know from human experience that it is possible for things to be pushed without flipping. I am sure that you can think of ways for it to happen on your own.

That was 100% question evasion. Here it is again:

- The earth is flat.
- It is being pushed from the bottom.
- If the force is not distributed evenly OR the earth is not perfectly balanced, one side will ride up relative to the other causing it to flip (rockets are pointy, symmetrical, and evenly balanced for a reason).
- The earth may be flat, but it's weight is NOT evenly distributed.
- Please tell us what keeps the earth from flipping.

And when you figure it out, could you please add it to the wiki?
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: stevecanuck on April 10, 2021, 09:13:28 PM
I just though of an experiment. Go to an indoor sky-diving dome where huge fans blow air upward. Take something flat and heavy enough for it to be held up by the blowing air. Try to stop it from flipping if it's not 100% symmetrical with even weight distribution (Hint: Take lots of money - you'll be there for a while.)
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2021, 09:17:17 PM
That was 100% question evasion. Here it is again:

- The earth is flat.
- It is being pushed from the bottom.
- If the force is not distributed evenly OR the earth is not perfectly balanced, one side will ride up relative to the other causing it to flip (rockets are pointy, symmetrical, and evenly balanced for a reason).
- The earth may be flat, but it's weight is NOT evenly distributed.
- Please tell us what keeps the earth from flipping.

And when you figure it out, could you please add it to the wiki?

Upwards acceleration is acknowledged to be identical to 'gravitation'. So a calm lake is perpetually pushing up a boat at 9.8 m/s/s as well. The mass distribution of a boat isn't evenly distributed, and the atoms of the water aren't perfectly distributed beneath the boat either. Yet boats and ships aren't flipping around on the water. Why is that?

As said, there are clearly ways that this can occur.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2021, 10:10:08 PM
Stability is also less of a concern in the centripetal force version of UA: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16319.msg210934#msg210934
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: stevecanuck on April 10, 2021, 11:11:24 PM
That was 100% question evasion. Here it is again:

- The earth is flat.
- It is being pushed from the bottom.
- If the force is not distributed evenly OR the earth is not perfectly balanced, one side will ride up relative to the other causing it to flip (rockets are pointy, symmetrical, and evenly balanced for a reason).
- The earth may be flat, but it's weight is NOT evenly distributed.
- Please tell us what keeps the earth from flipping.

And when you figure it out, could you please add it to the wiki?

Upwards acceleration is acknowledged to be identical to 'gravitation'. So a calm lake is perpetually pushing up a boat at 9.8 m/s/s as well. The mass distribution of a boat isn't evenly distributed, and the atoms of the water aren't perfectly distributed beneath the boat either. Yet boats and ships aren't flipping around on the water. Why is that?

Because it's a completely different set of parameters. A boat is not flat. The walls of the boat allow for more leeway in terms of weight distribution. Move off center, and the boat will list, but the walls keep it afloat. However, move too much, and over it goes. Just go to youtube and you'll see hours of clips of people tipping boats and canoes.

Now, back to flat things, which you did your level best to avoid talking about  (Heh, heh. Level best. See what I did there?). Stand on an SUP (stand-up-paddleboard) in the middle. If you're new at it, you'll tip it because your weight will go off center before you know it. Even if you're good at it you have to stay perfectly centered to keep it from tipping.

It's obvious that you're just making these "answers" up as you go along, as the absurdity of your "rebuttal" demonstrates. I'm guessing you've never had this question before and that you're scrambling to come up with an newly invented force by way of explanation.  Oh, btw, water IS evenly distributed. Are you seriously suggesting there are "clumps" of water???

I have a suggestion. Since UA can be anything you want it to be, why not expand on it and turn it into AUA? That stands for Adaptive Universal Acceleration. When UA is pushing under the Marianas Trench (all that water has to weigh more than shallower oceans), UA "ADAPTS" to account for the extra load and applies more force where needed. Yeah, THAT's the ticket.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: stevecanuck on April 10, 2021, 11:15:55 PM
Stability is also less of a concern in the centripetal force version of UA: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16319.msg210934#msg210934

Your own diagram of the bucket proves you wrong. It's perfectly symmetrical, the rope is tied EXACTLY to the MIDDLE of the handle, and the fluid contents of the bucket distribute EXACTLY evenly. Change one of those parameters and the bucket will wobble.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Iceman on April 10, 2021, 11:17:07 PM
The water over marianas trench has limited significance to the overall mass beneath that part of Earth
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2021, 11:30:47 PM
Quote from: stevecanuck
Because it's a completely different set of parameters. A boat is not flat. The walls of the boat allow for more leeway in terms of weight distribution. Move off center, and the boat will list, but the walls keep it afloat. However, move too much, and over it goes. Just go to youtube and you'll see hours of clips of people tipping boats and canoes.

Have you ever been on a large cruise ship?

(https://static.travelagewest.com/i/sized/780/437/images.ntmllc.com/v4/cruise-ship/RCC/RCC029/RCC029_EXT_Oasis-of-the-Seas_Z3A8D9.jpg)

Cruiseships are pretty stable. You aren't going to be able to walk to one side and cause the cruise ship to flip over. The larger the ship, the more stable it seems to be in response to waves and currents and irregularities like people walking around on it.

Stability is also less of a concern in the centripetal force version of UA: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16319.msg210934#msg210934

Your own diagram of the bucket proves you wrong. It's perfectly symmetrical, the rope is tied EXACTLY to the MIDDLE of the handle, and the fluid contents of the bucket distribute EXACTLY evenly. Change one of those parameters and the bucket will wobble.

Not really. If you tied the rope to a different part of the handle other than the exact middle the water in the bucket would still be flat in relation to the center of rotation. The bucket would just be crooked and have a new center of mass.

A more realistic version might be a giant porous rock or natural object spinning around in space, with the flat ocean in one of the cavities at one side of the object, where water is flattened out away from the center of rotation due to the 1g centripetal force. It doesn't have to be a bucket and a rope.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 11, 2021, 12:03:29 AM

Quote
Please, let us all hear you avoid directly answering the logical question poised above again.
.

No, they would not hit you at one drop per second.  The rate would depend on how fast you are moving toward the droplets.  And whatever the rate is, according your clock, it would be different according to a clock traveling with the water droplets.  Also, the water droplets would be length contracted.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: stevecanuck on April 11, 2021, 01:10:33 AM
Quote from: stevecanuck
Because it's a completely different set of parameters. A boat is not flat. The walls of the boat allow for more leeway in terms of weight distribution. Move off center, and the boat will list, but the walls keep it afloat. However, move too much, and over it goes. Just go to youtube and you'll see hours of clips of people tipping boats and canoes.

Have you ever been on a large cruise ship?

(https://static.travelagewest.com/i/sized/780/437/images.ntmllc.com/v4/cruise-ship/RCC/RCC029/RCC029_EXT_Oasis-of-the-Seas_Z3A8D9.jpg)

Cruiseships are pretty stable. You aren't going to be able to walk to one side and cause the cruise ship to flip over. The larger the ship, the more stable it seems to be in response to waves and currents and irregularities like people walking around on it.

Stability is also less of a concern in the centripetal force version of UA: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16319.msg210934#msg210934

Your own diagram of the bucket proves you wrong. It's perfectly symmetrical, the rope is tied EXACTLY to the MIDDLE of the handle, and the fluid contents of the bucket distribute EXACTLY evenly. Change one of those parameters and the bucket will wobble.

Not really. If you tied the rope to a different part of the handle other than the exact middle the water in the bucket would still be flat in relation to the center of rotation. The bucket would just be crooked and have a new center of mass.

A more realistic version might be a giant porous rock or natural object spinning around in space, with the flat ocean in one of the cavities at one side of the object, where water is flattened out away from the center of rotation due to the 1g centripetal force. It doesn't have to be a bucket and a rope.

When you put a disk on the water and try to stand on it, get back to me.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: stevecanuck on April 11, 2021, 01:12:50 AM
The water over marianas trench has limited significance to the overall mass beneath that part of Earth

Nothing that anyone has said changes the fact that a disk that does not have even weight distribution will tilt. Think of a beer tray.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 11, 2021, 06:14:54 AM
Quote
The water over marianas trench has limited significance to the overall mass beneath that part of Earth

Iceman, this seems like the type of question you would know the answer to...would tidal forces, both ocean and land cause the weight distribution of the earth to be constantly shifting?
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Iceman on April 11, 2021, 11:55:18 AM
I'm by no means an expert on tidal forces outside a couple physics and planetary astronomy courses.

The short answer is yes. But the more specific answer is that it's probably negligible in the grand scheme of things.

When it's high tide in the middle of the ocean, that only an extra <1m of water masses there. You get higher tides along the coasts, but the famously high tides like in the Bay of Fundy only occur because you have such a restricted basin geometry, so water 'piles up' in that funnel shaped basin to rise 8 m or so. Very impressive sight and causes some spectacular geomorphology, but it's really  not a huge deal as far as adding and removing mass in the context of the earth, since theres still ~5600 km of rock beneath it.

With GRACE data, I would bet that the local mass change due to tides would be enough to be measurable - but again, would be small.  For instance, GRACE data, though coarse resolution (around 200 x 200 km depending on the specific region) has measured changes in gravitational pull measured in areas of extreme groundwater extraction, around the Great Lakes as water levels have risen in the last 8-10 years, and it can measure seasonal changes due to ice and snow melt in some regions.

But again, these changes are (probably) like measuring increased mass added to a pool when someone pees in it.

Edit: should add that the weight distribution on the surface of the earth is obviously unequal, but much of it is 'cosmetic' in nature. The real difference makers are tectonic systems like subduction zones, mountain belts, hot spots, where dense crust (not just near surface rock units) is thickened by a more significant amount (several to tens of km!).
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: stevecanuck on April 11, 2021, 03:13:10 PM

My overall point is that the earth is not symmetrical in terms of weight distribution. I'm sure the side of the flat earth on which the Pacific Ocean resides is heavier that the other side. I suspect the difference is significant enough to cause UA to push the lighter side up relative to the other and cause a flip. Again, think of a beer tray.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 11, 2021, 05:59:24 PM
When you put a disk on the water and try to stand on it, get back to me.

You keep making this analogy but what I posted about larger ships being more stable is apt. In your scenerio it would be more like a bacterium trying to tip over a floating circular beer tray.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: stevecanuck on April 11, 2021, 06:41:05 PM
When you put a disk on the water and try to stand on it, get back to me.

You keep making this analogy but what I posted about larger ships being more stable is apt. In your scenerio it would be more like a bacterium trying to tip over a floating circular beer tray.

Nope. Boats aren't flat. They are designed to float and follow obvious physical laws. Anything flat that's being pushed at an acceleration equal to 1g has to be perfectly balanced. And you know it.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 11, 2021, 07:13:03 PM
When you put a disk on the water and try to stand on it, get back to me.

You keep making this analogy but what I posted about larger ships being more stable is apt. In your scenerio it would be more like a bacterium trying to tip over a floating circular beer tray.

Nope. Boats aren't flat. They are designed to float and follow obvious physical laws. Anything flat that's being pushed at an acceleration equal to 1g has to be perfectly balanced. And you know it.

Incorrect. It is not only boats that float. Many different types of masses can float, including masses that are non-symmetrical. They float without flopping around willy-nilly like in your imagination. Gravity being physically equivalent to upwards acceleration shows that a floating object can be continuously accelerated upwards without flopping around.

It is clear that larger floating objects are more stable. It is also clear that if a bacterium can't tip over a floating circular beer tray that we would also have difficulty tipping over something with a similar size ratio.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: stevecanuck on April 11, 2021, 07:33:08 PM
When you put a disk on the water and try to stand on it, get back to me.

You keep making this analogy but what I posted about larger ships being more stable is apt. In your scenerio it would be more like a bacterium trying to tip over a floating circular beer tray.

Nope. Boats aren't flat. They are designed to float and follow obvious physical laws. Anything flat that's being pushed at an acceleration equal to 1g has to be perfectly balanced. And you know it.

Incorrect. It is not only boats that float. Many different types of masses can float, including masses that are non-symmetrical. They float without flopping around willy-nilly like in your imagination. Gravity being physically equivalent to upwards acceleration shows that a floating object can be continuously accelerated upwards without flopping around.

It is clear that larger floating objects are more stable. It is also clear that if a bacterium can't tip over a floating circular beer tray that we would also have difficulty tipping over something with a similar size ratio.

Full circle. You can continue to deny because there's no way to prove it either way.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 11, 2021, 10:27:00 PM
Tom, I am curious as to what you think causes time dilation, if not spacetime warp.  Even gravitational time dilation is based it.  The closer you are to massive objects and the more massive the objects, the more spacetime is warped resulting in stronger gravity.  It’s odd, to say the least that you think that GTD somehow supports UA.  It's in direct contradiction to it.

Also, still waiting for an answer to my question on how mass can be effected by and/or resist a non-force.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 12, 2021, 09:34:20 PM
Tom, I am curious as to what you think causes time dilation, if not spacetime warp.  Even gravitational time dilation is based it.  The closer you are to massive objects and the more massive the objects, the more spacetime is warped resulting in stronger gravity.  It’s odd, to say the least that you think that GTD somehow supports UA.  It's in direct contradiction to it.

Also, still waiting for an answer to my question on how mass can be effected by and/or resist a non-force.

This was already discussed in the rocket analogy that was discussed, as well as the water droplet analogy. When you accelerate into photons you perceive their sequence of events quicker. The spacetime warp is not needed.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 12, 2021, 10:54:35 PM
Quote
This was already discussed in the rocket analogy that was discussed, as well as the water droplet analogy. When you accelerate into photons you perceive their sequence of events quicker. The spacetime warp is not needed.

If spacetime warp is not needed,why do you perceive events quicker?

Maybe this will help.

Imagine that the vertical rod is 186,000 miles long and there is a light signal bouncing off a mirror at each end.  So each round trip from bottom to top and back to bottom is 2 seconds. Why does the moving clock click at exactly half the speed of the stationary clock?  The light is bouncing back and forth between the mirrors at the same rate, but the stationary clock makes two round trips and the moving clock only makes one.

(https://i.imgur.com/7lPvSUj.gif)

So motion changes how time elapses.  It condenses the passage of time.  And what is another word for condensing something?  If I take a sheet regular size notebook paper and condense it, what do I have to do it? What is the difference between the space the light is moving through on the stationary clock and the space the light is moving through on the moving clock?

And you still didn't answer my question about how a non-force effects the motion of mass.

Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: stevecanuck on April 12, 2021, 11:31:31 PM
Many different types of masses can float, including masses that are non-symmetrical. They float without flopping around willy-nilly like in your imagination.

You are right, to a certain extent. Let me back off from my assertion that non-symmetrical. flat objects will flip. I agree they will not necessarily flip. They would have to be asymmetrical beyond a certain point for that to happen.

What WILL happen, even if they still float, is that they will list. Any object that has a flat "top side", but is not perfectly weight-distributed, will sit in the water at an angle relative to the flat surface. I don't see any way to deny that.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 13, 2021, 12:30:49 AM
Quote
This was already discussed in the rocket analogy that was discussed, as well as the water droplet analogy. When you accelerate into photons you perceive their sequence of events quicker. The spacetime warp is not needed.

If spacetime warp is not needed,why do you perceive events quicker?

Because the clock is basically broadcasting the equivalent of a series of photographs of the clock face into space towards you with changes at one second intervals which reads 00:01 00:02 00:03 00:04 00:05.

If you accelerate into those photons you will perceive the change of 00:01 to 00:05 in a quicker amount of time than you would if you were not accelerating and they were hitting you at one second intervals. You perceive them to move quicker when accelerating toward them much like fast forwarding a VHS tape speeds up the sequence of images on a television, or if you were to flip the pictures in a flip book a little faster.

Time isn't really speeding up or slowing down for anything. You are just perceiving the sequence of images faster because you are accelerating into the sets of photons that are traveling towards you through space, 'fast forwarding' the 'video' sequence of image that was broadcasted towards you.

Obviously this perception explanation is a simpler and clearer explanation than "the fabric of time bent!"

Quote
Maybe this will help.

Imagine that the vertical rod is 186,000 miles long and there is a light signal bouncing off a mirror at each end.  So each round trip from bottom to top and back to bottom is 2 seconds. Why does the moving clock click at exactly half the speed of the stationary clock?  The light is bouncing back and forth between the mirrors at the same rate, but the stationary clock makes two round trips and the moving clock only makes one.

(https://i.imgur.com/7lPvSUj.gif)

So motion changes how time elapses.  It condenses the passage of time.  And what is another word for condensing something?  If I take a sheet regular size notebook paper and condense it, what do I have to do it? What is the difference between the space the light is moving through on the stationary clock and the space the light is moving through on the moving clock?

In your animation there the photon making the diagonal path takes longer to bounce between the mirrors when motion occurs because the light travels at a set speed and the particular diagonal path it has to make to bounce between the mirrors when in motion requires greater amount of space to complete the mirror circuit, as compared to simply bouncing up and down in the scenario where the mirrors are stationary.

Spacetime bending isn't required to do that. You can see its physical path and why it takes longer in the animation. That would also occur if it were a bouncy ball moving at a set speed through space doing that in those situations instead of a photon. The ball that has to move on the diagonal path at a set speed would also bounce between the mirrors slower. No spacetime bending required.

Quote
And you still didn't answer my question about how a non-force effects the motion of mass.

Please rephrase your question. Why should a non-force affect the motion of mass?
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 13, 2021, 01:04:17 PM
Quote
In your animation there the photon making the diagonal path takes longer to bounce between the mirrors when motion occurs because the light travels at a set speed and the particular diagonal path it has to make to bounce between the mirrors when in motion requires greater amount of space to complete the mirror circuit than simply bouncing up and down in the scenario where the mirrors are stationary.

Spacetime bending isn't required to do that. You can see its physical path and why it takes longer in the animation. That would also occur if it were a bouncy ball moving at a set speed through space doing that in those situations instead of a photon. The ball that has to move on the diagonal path would also bounce between the mirrors slower. No spacetime bending required.

You’re getting there, but you’re still not connecting the dots. The diagonal that the light signal must travel along...the bend in space time.  The physical space between the two ends of the moving clock is warped relative to the space between the two ends of the stationary clock.  In the animation the moving clock is ticking at half the rate as the stationary clock.  How would that diagonal chance if the moving clock were ticking at a quarter of the rate of the stationary clock?

If that’s not intuitive enough for you...Imagine a really, really tall building.  We will call it “space”.  As the top of space moves faster through time (because we know that a clock runs faster at the top of a building), than the bottom of “space” what happens to  space (building)?  It starts to tip, or bend or warp, whatever you want to call it.  The point is that because time is moving at a higher rate at the top than at the bottom, the shape of space changes as it moves through time.

Or how about this analogy...imagine two kayaks floating side by side going down a river and joined at the middle by pole.  The river is time and the kayaks are space.  The left bank of the river is straight and the right side is curvy.  The current in the stream is 186,000 mph, but because the kayak on right must navigate the curves, it is moving slower than the kayak on the left.  What happens?  Our “space” will twist as the kayak on the left moves faster than the kayak on right.

This one should be the most intuitive at all.  Imagine points A and B on either side of a mountain. Points A and B are the two ends of the light clock.  One car goes a steady 186,000 mph straight through a tunnel from point A to point B.  A second car goes a steady 186,000 mph around and over the mountain on a twisty road.  Obviously it takes the second car longer because the road is “warped”.  The more warped the road is the longer it will take to get from point A to point B.

So if it takes one light signal longer to go from point A to point B, than another light signal to get from point A to B when they are both moving at the same speed, what can we conclude?  Spacetime (like the road in the analogy) between points A and B is curvier for one light signal. The only reason it would take one light signal longer to move from point A to point B when it is moving the same speed as another light signal is because it must navigate more twists and turns. That's what causes Gravitational time dilation.  The deeper in the gravity field, the more warped spacetime is and the slower clocks will run because it has to navigate more twists and turns.  I’m running out of ways to explain it.

Quote
Please rephrase your question. Why should a non-force affect the motion of mass?

Not sure there is simpler way to rephrase it.  That is what I am asking you why should a non-force affect the motion of mass? You seem to think that gravity somehow effects the motion of "gravitational mass" differently than it does "inertial mass".

Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 13, 2021, 05:45:36 PM
Quote from: fisherman
You’re getting there, but you’re still not connecting the dots. The diagonal that the light signal must travel along...the bend in space time.  The physical space between the two ends of the moving clock is warped relative to the space between the two ends of the stationary clock.  In the animation the moving clock is ticking at half the rate as the stationary clock.  How would that diagonal chance if the moving clock were ticking at a quarter of the rate of the stationary clock?

The animation that you posted gives a physical depiction of how it works without spacetime bending. Light travels at a set finite speed. It is clear that the path is longer when traveling diagonally than when travelling up and down. It is also clear that a bouncy ball with a set speed moving on a diagonal path like the diagonal photon would also take longer to bounce between the two surfaces.

Some of these analogies for "spacetime" are actually demonstrations on how it works without needing the spacetime.

Other analogies like

'if we imagine spacetime as a piece of paper that we crumple'...

'if we imagine spacetime like a car driving up a mountain'...

'if we imagine spacetime like a canoe on water'...

are not actually physical demonstrations on how spacetime works to do those things, but are imaginative analogies that we can relate with on a propositional basis. We can't directly manipulate this hidden layer of reality, spacetime, to confirm that. Spacetime is not necessarily like any of those things. There is no reason for why we should imagine that it is, when the discussed effects from movement and acceleration can be explained elsewise without such assumptions.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 13, 2021, 06:27:18 PM

Quote
The animation that you posted gives a physical depiction of how it works without spacetime bending. Light travels at a set finite speed. It is clear that the path is longer when traveling diagonally than when travelling up and down. It is also clear that a bouncy ball with a set speed moving on a diagonal path like the diagonal photon would also take longer to bounce between the two surfaces

It shows exactly a bend is space time.  You said yourself, the light on the moving clock moves through diagonal space.  The light on the stationary clock moves through vertical space.  Bend something vertical and it becomes horizontal.

There is no reason for the light signal moving between the top and the bottom of the clock to tick at different rates except that there is a difference in the shape of  the spacetime through which the light signal moves. I don’t see how you can disagree with that (but I’m sure you’ll find a way). The shape of the space is different and accounts for the differing rate of ticks.  From that we can conclude that motion (specifically acceleration) creates a warp in space time.

How?

If two objects are moving along the same straight line at the same speed they are not in motion relative to one another. There will be no difference in the rate a light clock ticks for each object. When one of the objects changes its direction and/or speed (accelerates)  relative to the other the two objects are now in relative motion.  Motion now exists where previously there had been no motion.

Now that the objects are in relative motion to one another, light clocks traveling with each object will tick at different rates.  And as I stated above, the only reason the light clocks would click at different rates is because the shape of the spacetime through which the light travels has changed.

In short,
No motion=no difference in tick rate
No difference in tick rate=no difference shape of spacetime
No motion=no difference is shape of spacetime

As opposed to
Motion (resulting from acceleration)=difference in tick rate
Difference in tick rate=difference is shape of spacetime
Motion (resulting from acceleration)=difference in shape of spacetime.[/i]

Motion resulting from acceleration warps space time.

Now that we’ve taken the long way around(pun intended) to back where we started, I ask again

If acceleration produces a warp in spacetime and acceleration and gravity are equivalent, then why shouldn’t we conclude that a warp in spacetime is what we experience as gravity as opposed to some unknown mysterious force pushing the earth up?

Quote
We can't directly manipulate this hidden layer of reality, spacetime, to confirm that. Spacetime is not necessarily like any of those things.

You struggle with the concept that spacetime is an actual material thing, which is understandable.  Its whole other rabbit hole to go down, but if the equivalence principle is to hold up, then spacetime must be material.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 13, 2021, 07:19:55 PM
It shows exactly a bend is space time.  You said yourself, the light on the moving clock moves through diagonal space.  The light on the stationary clock moves through vertical space.  Bend something vertical and it becomes horizontal.

Since we know that light can travel diagonally in normal Newtonian space to do this, why do we need to modify and bend that situation for your spacetime explanation?

Quote
There is no reason for the light signal moving between the top and the bottom of the clock to tick at different rates except that there is a difference in the shape of  the spacetime through which the light signal moves.

Yes, there is a reason. It takes longer for an object traveling at a set speed to travel on the diagonal route in the animation. Just look at the animation you provided. It shows how it would work in normal Newtonian space.

Quote
I don’t see how you can disagree with that (but I’m sure you’ll find a way). The shape of the space is different and accounts for the differing rate of ticks.  From that we can conclude that motion (specifically acceleration) creates a warp in space time.

How?

No. The light traveled diagonally as the mirrors moved, just like in the animation you provided. Nothing about "spacetime" is required to make this work.

Quote
No motion=no difference in tick rate
No difference in tick rate=no difference shape of spacetime
No motion=no difference is shape of spacetime

Motion resulting from acceleration warps space time.

These are just statements.

Quote
Now that we’ve taken the long way around(pun intended) to back where we started, I ask again

If acceleration produces a warp in spacetime and acceleration and gravity are equivalent, then why shouldn’t we conclude that a warp in spacetime is what we experience as gravity as opposed to some unknown mysterious force pushing the earth up?

Acceleration does not necessarily produce a 'warp in spacetime'. We have seen that the effects can be explained elsewise. It is clear to me that 'spacetime' is just nonsense that you were hoodwinked into believing because they needed to explain the horizontally motionless earth experiments like Michelson-Morley (https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment), from which they came up with these overelaborate explanations for reality. This is the basis for this.

Quote
You struggle with the concept that spacetime is an actual material thing, which is understandable.  Its whole other rabbit hole to go down, but if the equivalence principle is to hold up, then spacetime must be material.

Nothing you have shown in regards to the speeding up or slowing down of events requires bending spacetime. You are proposing a fanciful explanation for something which does not need to be fancifully explained.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 13, 2021, 07:45:15 PM
Many different types of masses can float, including masses that are non-symmetrical. They float without flopping around willy-nilly like in your imagination.

You are right, to a certain extent. Let me back off from my assertion that non-symmetrical. flat objects will flip. I agree they will not necessarily flip. They would have to be asymmetrical beyond a certain point for that to happen.

What WILL happen, even if they still float, is that they will list. Any object that has a flat "top side", but is not perfectly weight-distributed, will sit in the water at an angle relative to the flat surface. I don't see any way to deny that.

And what makes you think that the center of mass of the Earth is perfectly centered and weight distributed?

A crooked cup on a crooked ship will still have level water in it.

And if we allow the surface structures like the 'cup' to melt and erode over eons, and allow for new mountain creation, etc., the new features and prominent peaks of the Earth would point vertically in relation to the water surface instead of remaining crooked.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: stevecanuck on April 13, 2021, 08:01:11 PM
Many different types of masses can float, including masses that are non-symmetrical. They float without flopping around willy-nilly like in your imagination.

You are right, to a certain extent. Let me back off from my assertion that non-symmetrical. flat objects will flip. I agree they will not necessarily flip. They would have to be asymmetrical beyond a certain point for that to happen.

What WILL happen, even if they still float, is that they will list. Any object that has a flat "top side", but is not perfectly weight-distributed, will sit in the water at an angle relative to the flat surface. I don't see any way to deny that.

And what makes you think that the center of mass of the Earth is perfectly centered and weight distributed?

I have to admit I'm a little disappointed with your efforts. I never said it was. I said it would HAVE TO BE perfectly weight balanced. And not just on top, but the entire disk. Is it? Has the site ever addressed the topic?

Quote
A crooked cup on a crooked ship will still have level water in it.

It's like you're not even trying. YES, it will have level water in it, BUT most of it would be on one side of the cup. The earth equivalent of that would see the oceans spilling over one side of your "cup", ie: the "ice wall", and into space.

Quote
And we allow the surface structure of the 'cup' to melt and erode over eons, and allow for new mountain creation, etc., the new prominent peaks of the Earth would point vertically in relation to the water surface instead of remaining crooked.

It sounds like you made all that up as you were typing. Congratulations you have just invented a brand new branch of geology on the fly.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 13, 2021, 09:26:22 PM
Quote
Nothing you have shown in regards to the speeding up or slowing down of events requires bending spacetime.

Can time slow down for a light clock that is not moving through horizontal space?  If not, then yes, space must change shape for time to slow down.

Quote
Acceleration does not necessarily produce a 'warp in spacetime'. We have seen that the effects can be explained elsewise.

What is the elsewise?

Quote
Yes, there is a reason. It takes longer for an object traveling at a set speed to travel on the diagonal route in the animation. Just look at the animation you provided. It shows how it would work in normal Newtonian space.

Of course it would be the same in Newtonian space.  The nature of spacetime didn’t change between Newton and Einstein, just our understanding of it did.  Newton just didn’t recognize the significance of the fact and how it related to gravity.

Quote
You are proposing a fanciful explanation for something which does not need to be fancifully explained.

As opposed to the unfanciful explanation of some force that accelerates the earth up, without any explanation how it works or where it comes from.

Quote
These are just statements.

Statements that logically follow. You obviously disagree but don’t explain why.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 14, 2021, 07:31:33 PM
I've explained why these things would work without relativity quite clearly. You can stop pretending to be confused and refer back to those posts.

Relativity is not needed for Time Dilation. Time Dilation was predicted before the advent of relativity by physicist Joseph Larmor, showing that it does not need relativity to work. He also discovered the Lorentz transformations some years before both Lorentz and Einstein. Larmor held the Lucasian Chair, the same chair held by Isaac Newton, George Airy, and Stephen Hawking.

In fact, Larmor disagreed with Einstein's approach of taking the time dilation equations to use with "spacetime".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Larmor

"In his book Aether and Matter (1900), [Larmor] again presented the Lorentz transformations, time dilation and length contraction (treating these as dynamic rather than kinematic effects). Larmor was opposed to the spacetime interpretation of the Lorentz transformation in special relativity because he continued to believe in an absolute aether. He was also critical of the curvature of space of general relativity, to the extent that he claimed that an absolute time was essential to astronomy (Larmor 1924, 1927)."

In the following paper physicist Joseph Levy shows how aether theory explains time dilation without spacetime:

Bio - http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Joseph_Levy

Paper - https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0611/0611077.pdf

Aether Theory Clock Retardation vs. Special Relativity Time Dilation
Joseph Levy

Abstract:

"Assuming a model of aether non-entrained by the motion of celestial bodies, one can provide a rational explanation of the experimental processes affecting the measurement of time when clocks are in motion. Contrary to special relativity, aether theory does not assume that the time itself is affected by motion; the reading displayed by the moving clocks results from two facts: 1/ Due to their movement through the aether, they tick at a slower rate than in the aether frame. 2/ The usual synchronization procedures generate a synchronism discrepancy effect. These facts give rise to an alteration of the measurement of time which, as we shall show, exactly explains the experimental results. In particular, they enable to solve an apparent paradox that special relativity cannot explain (see chapter 4). When the measurement distortions are corrected, the time proves to be the same in all co-ordinate systems moving away from one another with rectilinear uniform motion. These considerations strongly support the existence of a privileged aether frame. The consequences concern special relativity (SR) as well as general relativity (GR) which is an extension of SR. We should note that Einstein himself became conscious of the necessity of the aether from 1916, in contrast with conventional relativity."

I have to admit I'm a little disappointed with your efforts. I never said it was. I said it would HAVE TO BE perfectly weight balanced. And not just on top, but the entire disk. Is it? Has the site ever addressed the topic?

It's like you're not even trying. YES, it will have level water in it, BUT most of it would be on one side of the cup. The earth equivalent of that would see the oceans spilling over one side of your "cup", ie: the "ice wall", and into space.

It sounds like you made all that up as you were typing. Congratulations you have just invented a brand new branch of geology on the fly.

If you have the crooked deck of a crooked ship and pour a bucket of sand onto the crooked deck, the peak of the sand will be pointing straight up, and not be crooked with the ship's deck.

If we have two mounds of sand on the crooked deck of a ship, and push them together, it will create a bigger mound, also pointing straight up, and not aligned with the crooked deck of the ship.

It is clear that erosion and new hill and mountain creation would cause the formations to align with the vertical and not with the slope of the surface.

Your idea of water 'falling off' assumes a lot. Since those areas are far from the Sun it would most likely freeze and create a container for itself than fall off.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: stevecanuck on April 14, 2021, 09:06:41 PM
I've explained why these things would work without relativity quite clearly. You can stop pretending to be confused and refer back to those posts.

Relativity is not needed for Time Dilation. Time Dilation was predicted before the advent of relativity by physicist Joseph Larmor, showing that it does not need relativity to work. He also discovered the Lorentz transformations some years before both Lorentz and Einstein. Larmor held the Lucasian Chair, the same chair held by Isaac Newton, George Airy, and Stephen Hawking.

In fact, Lamor disagreed with Einstein's approach of taking his time dilation equations to use with "spacetime".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Larmor

"In his book Aether and Matter (1900), [Lamor] again presented the Lorentz transformations, time dilation and length contraction (treating these as dynamic rather than kinematic effects). Larmor was opposed to the spacetime interpretation of the Lorentz transformation in special relativity because he continued to believe in an absolute aether. He was also critical of the curvature of space of general relativity, to the extent that he claimed that an absolute time was essential to astronomy (Larmor 1924, 1927)."

In the following paper physicist Joseph Levy explains how aether theory explains time dilation without spacetime:

Bio - http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Joseph_Levy

Paper - https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0611/0611077.pdf

Aether Theory Clock Retardation vs. Special Relativity Time Dilation
Joseph Levy

Abstract:

"Assuming a model of aether non-entrained by the motion of celestial bodies, one
can provide a rational explanation of the experimental processes affecting the
measurement of time when clocks are in motion. Contrary to special relativity,
aether theory does not assume that the time itself is affected by motion; the
reading displayed by the moving clocks results from two facts: 1/ Due to their
movement through the aether, they tick at a slower rate than in the aether frame.
2/ The usual synchronization procedures generate a synchronism discrepancy
effect. These facts give rise to an alteration of the measurement of time which, as
we shall show, exactly explains the experimental results. In particular, they
enable to solve an apparent paradox that special relativity cannot explain (see
chapter 4). When the measurement distortions are corrected, the time proves to
be the same in all co-ordinate systems moving away from one another with
rectilinear uniform motion. These considerations strongly support the existence
of a privileged aether frame. The consequences concern special relativity (SR) as
well as general relativity (GR) which is an extension of SR. We should note that
Einstein himself became conscious of the necessity of the aether from 1916, in
contrast with conventional relativity."

I have to admit I'm a little disappointed with your efforts. I never said it was. I said it would HAVE TO BE perfectly weight balanced. And not just on top, but the entire disk. Is it? Has the site ever addressed the topic?

It's like you're not even trying. YES, it will have level water in it, BUT most of it would be on one side of the cup. The earth equivalent of that would see the oceans spilling over one side of your "cup", ie: the "ice wall", and into space.

It sounds like you made all that up as you were typing. Congratulations you have just invented a brand new branch of geology on the fly.

If you have the crooked deck of a crooked ship and pour a bucket of sand onto the crooked deck, the peak of the sand will be pointing straight up, and not be crooked with the ship's deck.

If we have two mounds of sand on the crooked deck of a ship, and push them together, it will create a bigger mound, also pointing straight up, and not aligned with the crooked deck of the ship.

It is clear that erosion and new hill and mountain creation would cause the formations to align with the vertical and not with the slope of the surface.

Your idea of water 'falling off' assumes a lot. Since those areas are far from the Sun it would most likely freeze and create a container for itself than fall off.

Still making it up as you go along I see. What you have NOT addressed is that no such tilt exists, therefore all your examples are pointless. ALL of the earth's water would have flowed to ONE SIDE of the world (as your cup example states), and it hasn't, in case you haven't noticed.

Therefore, even weight distribution and symmetry must exist, AND UA must be acting at exactly right angles to the surface of the earth, which means that FE must include those criteria as necessary elements to maintaining the flat earth claim.

But, you've obviously never had to think of this before, so it's time to step up and invent some new laws of physics as you've done with UA and EA.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Iceman on April 14, 2021, 09:26:54 PM
You guys are both kinda right, for all the wrong reasons.

Steve, your premise is fair, but you're assuming that surface variations in mass distributions are significant enough on the scale of the purported flat earth. Even if the flat earth disk was only one meter thicker than our deepest borehole drilled so far (~8 km), that mass of dense rock would likely be sufficient to outweigh the irregularities that arise to to mountains, valleys, ocean basins etc.

Tom  has rightly pointed this out, but is now asserting long-lasting geologic processes like mountain building and erosion account for why we see things balanced the way we do. Introducing these processes creates a host problems because they are not addressed in FET (the wiki provides no references to support the descriptions on that page, and lists a type of rock that doesnt exist).

Neither of your recent claims are based in much that is verifiable or testable.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: stevecanuck on April 15, 2021, 12:18:30 AM
You guys are both kinda right, for all the wrong reasons.

Steve, your premise is fair, but you're assuming that surface variations in mass distributions are significant enough on the scale of the purported flat earth. Even if the flat earth disk was only one meter thicker than our deepest borehole drilled so far (~8 km), that mass of dense rock would likely be sufficient to outweigh the irregularities that arise to to mountains, valleys, ocean basins etc.

Tom  has rightly pointed this out, but is now asserting long-lasting geologic processes like mountain building and erosion account for why we see things balanced the way we do. Introducing these processes creates a host problems because they are not addressed in FET (the wiki provides no references to support the descriptions on that page, and lists a type of rock that doesnt exist).

Neither of your recent claims are based in much that is verifiable or testable.

For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

This places additional criteria for FEers to explain, and obviously they haven't invented any new physics yet, such as adaptive UA, to account for it (in the case of asymmetry), or explained how the world came to have perfect symmetry.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Iceman on April 15, 2021, 12:35:14 AM

For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

I dont doubt 1 or 3, but your problem lies in (2). All that who-knows-what can do a whole lot to offset all the irregular mass distributions we see at surface, or just flat-out make them meaningless. Keep in mind earth's crust makes up only about 1% of our mass, the mantle is 68%, and the core 31%.

All those mountains and plateaus and volcanoes and oceans....they dont really do shit to our center of mass.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 15, 2021, 02:51:32 AM
Now we’re getting somewhere and you’ve given me something to work with other than just “no, you’re wrong”.

So what if Larmor (Kudos to you for knowing who he is.  His publicist wasn’t as good as some of the other rock star physicists working at the time) predicted time dilation before Einstein? It’s no secret that he built on the work of a lot of people who were coming up with hints and bits of pieces of what was to become SR.  The point is, Einstein is the one who made all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. That is what was so extraordinary.

You said
Quote
Relativity is not needed for Time Dilation

You’ve got the whole argument backwards. You seem to think that Einstein came up with Relativity and then used time dilation to support the theory.  That’s not what happened.  By taking those bits and pieces of time dilation, length contraction, integration of space and time, which were all ideas other people had already explored and putting them together with the equivalence principle ultimately led him to the logical conclusion that spacetime is warped and that is what causes gravity. The Theory of Relativity may not be needed for time dilation, but time dilation is evidence of relativity and spacetime warp.   If spacetime is moving at different speeds at different places, by definition it is warped.

I can understand rejecting that if you don’t accept that spacetime is an actual physical entity, but relativity demands that it is. And claiming that relativity doesn’t lead to the conclusion that spacetime is warped is a different debate than relativity is wrong because spacetime is only an abstract concept, without material existence.

You’ve made the point that effects of relativity could also exist in Newtonian space, and on one level I agree with that.  If the only space you know is Newtonian, and effects of relativity are observed, then the obvious conclusion is that they can exist in Newtonian space, even if you don’ t understand exactly how.

But on a more fundamental level, it is not true. Newton conceived space and time as absolute, unchanging. Time  “flows equably without relation to anything external” and space “in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable”.  This is obviously in direct contradiction to SR, which make space and time relative. Time doesn’t flow equably without relation to anything external.  If flows relative to motion. And space is not always similar and immovable. Its dynamic, it moves and changes, it acts upon things and can be acted upon.

You can’t argue that space is absolute when it supports your position and then also argue that it is relative when it supports your position.  Either time dilation and length contraction exist (no matter who first had the idea) and spacetime is relative or they don’t exist and spacetime is absolute. Both views are supportable to different degrees, people have been debating it for millennia. But pick a lane and stay in it.

As for Levy, he makes the same stale argument that you must measure the one way speed of light in order to know if its constant. It’s hardly a novel argument. Remember when I posted the animation of the light clocks and told you to count the clicks as a round trip...this is why. To measure the speed of light in one direction, you’d need a synchronized stopwatch at each end, but relative motion affects the rate of your clocks relative to the speed of light. You can’t synchronize them without knowing the speed of light, which you can’t know without measuring. What you can do is use a single stopwatch to measure the round trip and divide by two.  That’s what Einstein did. He assumed it was the same speed both ways.

But here’s the thing...it doesn’t matter. All experiments agree with that assumption, but they also agree with the idea that the speed of light coming towards us is ten times faster than its speed going away from us. Light doesn’t have to have a constant speed in all directions, it just has to have a constant “average” round-trip speed. Relativity still holds if the speed of light is anisotropic.  There’s actually a train of thought that the speed of light isn’t constant, but that time and space contract and expand in such a way that we will always perceive and measure it to be c.  If you think about it, it makes sense.  If speed is always measured the same, but time and space are not, then its not a big leap to conclude that spacetime adjusts itself in such a way that speed will always be measured the same.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: stevecanuck on April 15, 2021, 03:56:59 AM

For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

I dont doubt 1 or 3, but your problem lies in (2). All that who-knows-what can do a whole lot to offset all the irregular mass distributions we see at surface, or just flat-out make them meaningless. Keep in mind earth's crust makes up only about 1% of our mass, the mantle is 68%, and the core 31%.

All those mountains and plateaus and volcanoes and oceans....they dont really do shit to our center of mass.

You're using round earth numbers. We have no idea how thick the flat earth is. Nothing changes the fact that the shape and weight of a flat earth has to be precise to avoid tilting when pushed from below.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 15, 2021, 05:08:37 AM
Quote
For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

It gets even more complicated when you consider that the motion of an object in constant proper acceleration at relativistic speeds is hyperbolic.  Makes that whole 90° to the direction of the pushing force even more problematic.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Action80 on April 15, 2021, 10:49:01 AM

For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

I dont doubt 1 or 3, but your problem lies in (2). All that who-knows-what can do a whole lot to offset all the irregular mass distributions we see at surface, or just flat-out make them meaningless. Keep in mind earth's crust makes up only about 1% of our mass, the mantle is 68%, and the core 31%.

All those mountains and plateaus and volcanoes and oceans....they dont really do shit to our center of mass.

You're using round earth numbers. We have no idea how thick the flat earth is. Nothing changes the fact that the shape and weight of a flat earth has to be precise to avoid tilting when pushed from below.
Again, it does not if the force is differentiated between the supposed light/heavy areas of which speak.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: stevecanuck on April 15, 2021, 02:38:16 PM

For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

I dont doubt 1 or 3, but your problem lies in (2). All that who-knows-what can do a whole lot to offset all the irregular mass distributions we see at surface, or just flat-out make them meaningless. Keep in mind earth's crust makes up only about 1% of our mass, the mantle is 68%, and the core 31%.

All those mountains and plateaus and volcanoes and oceans....they dont really do shit to our center of mass.

You're using round earth numbers. We have no idea how thick the flat earth is. Nothing changes the fact that the shape and weight of a flat earth has to be precise to avoid tilting when pushed from below.
Again, it does not if the force is differentiated between the supposed light/heavy areas of which speak.

And has been postulated by FEers? Is it in the wiki? If not, why not?
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Action80 on April 15, 2021, 03:33:36 PM

For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

I dont doubt 1 or 3, but your problem lies in (2). All that who-knows-what can do a whole lot to offset all the irregular mass distributions we see at surface, or just flat-out make them meaningless. Keep in mind earth's crust makes up only about 1% of our mass, the mantle is 68%, and the core 31%.

All those mountains and plateaus and volcanoes and oceans....they dont really do shit to our center of mass.

You're using round earth numbers. We have no idea how thick the flat earth is. Nothing changes the fact that the shape and weight of a flat earth has to be precise to avoid tilting when pushed from below.
Again, it does not if the force is differentiated between the supposed light/heavy areas of which speak.

And has been postulated by FEers? Is it in the wiki? If not, why not?
Forces are differentiated in many types of situations. You do know this, correct?

I do not think this needs to be reiterated when it is undeniable.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: stevecanuck on April 15, 2021, 04:21:14 PM

For the earth, or anything else, that is purported to have (1) a flat side on top, (2) who-knows-what underneath, and (3) is being pushed from underneath, it MUST be weight-balanced AND symmetrical in order to keep the top side at 90° to the direction of the pushing force. Are you doubting that?

I dont doubt 1 or 3, but your problem lies in (2). All that who-knows-what can do a whole lot to offset all the irregular mass distributions we see at surface, or just flat-out make them meaningless. Keep in mind earth's crust makes up only about 1% of our mass, the mantle is 68%, and the core 31%.

All those mountains and plateaus and volcanoes and oceans....they dont really do shit to our center of mass.

You're using round earth numbers. We have no idea how thick the flat earth is. Nothing changes the fact that the shape and weight of a flat earth has to be precise to avoid tilting when pushed from below.
Again, it does not if the force is differentiated between the supposed light/heavy areas of which speak.

And has been postulated by FEers? Is it in the wiki? If not, why not?
Forces are differentiated in many types of situations. You do know this, correct?

I do not think this needs to be reiterated when it is undeniable.

So, that's a "no". Got it.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: The Earth Is A Globe. Deal With It on April 15, 2021, 05:37:56 PM
What if there is a giant rocket dead-center (shape-wise) so that no matter which way it tilts, the rocket is always pushing 'up'?
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Kokorikos on April 16, 2021, 06:35:29 AM
What if there is a giant rocket dead-center (shape-wise) so that no matter which way it tilts, the rocket is always pushing 'up'?

It would fall if its mass is not evenly distributed. Take for example a saucer and balance it on your finger. You can easily do it because it is evenly balanced.
Add a cookie to the side of it and it will tilt or even fall.

Edited to add this: I think I misunderstood what you said. Did you mean that the "rocket" changes the direction of the force so that when it tilts it is pushed up in the new direction where the disk is facing?
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: The Earth Is A Globe. Deal With It on April 16, 2021, 01:18:53 PM
Yes. This is a test to see if the FErs will listen to anything, and it is good debate practice to show all possible angles. I am genuinely interested to see how FErs and GErs alike will respond to this theory.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 16, 2021, 06:49:42 PM
Yes. This is a test to see if the FErs will listen to anything, and it is good debate practice to show all possible angles. I am genuinely interested to see how FErs and GErs alike will respond to this theory.

I can answer that for you.  The FErs won't listen.

But from a GErs perspective, a flat earth moving at relativistic speeds will never be moving "straight up".  Its motion will be hyperbolic, so any accelerating force from underneath would have to be constantly shifting its trajectory to keep the surface at right angles, regardless of any imbalance of the weight above.  That means it would have to be exerting the force at different angles depending where along the hyperbola its traveling resulting in differences in the measured UA force on the surface.

This is addition to the complications created by Born Rigidty issues...but I don't want to pile on.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: jack44556677 on April 16, 2021, 08:45:05 PM

I can answer that for you.  The FErs won't listen.

That's not true, it is the FAITHFUL that won't listen (or rather, hear/understand)

If you have FAITH (aka belief) that the world is spherical (or flat/any shape) and "spacetime" is real, you are conditioned not to listen.  Overcoming that is not easy, and requires objective study and the interest to learn things that contradict what you were conditioned into believing by rote under the guise of education.

Repetition was used to solidify the belief, and must be used to undo it.

I recommend re-reading tom's posts in this thread without a "debunker" bias and asking questions if you don't understand (or disagree).  Try imagining that you may have been misinformed, and that other conceptions may be just as effective at describing what we observe.  In science this constantly happens; it is just a question of how long before we recognize it. Your faith will encourage you strongly not to do such things, but objective study/evaluation/science requires it.

Tom's detailed explanation is much more in depth than I would have given, and worth rereading and considering.  I would have just explained that time is complete fiction (has no reality beyond thermodynamic change, a unidirectional process), as is "spacetime". Even einstein himself began to doubt his "castle in the sky" towards the end.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: The Earth Is A Globe. Deal With It on April 16, 2021, 11:47:15 PM
a flat earth moving at relativistic speeds will never be moving "straight up".  Its motion will be hyperbolic, so any accelerating force from underneath would have to be constantly shifting its trajectory to keep the surface at right angles
Nonono, the whole point of having a rocket in the center is that if the FE tilts, the rocket tilts with it. Of course, there is still the notion of fuel (fusion might be viable, as it wasn't made by humans), along with the fact that it has never been detected, ever, in the history of humans.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 17, 2021, 05:38:56 AM
Quote
Nonono, the whole point of having a rocket in the center is that if the FE tilts, the rocket tilts with it. Of course, there is still the notion of fuel (fusion might be viable, as it wasn't made by humans), along with the fact that it has never been detected, ever, in the history of humans.

I'm not talking about keeping it from wobbling like a dinner plate balanced on a stick.  I am talking about the UA force pushing the earth through a hyperbole, which is curved.  In order to change the earth's trajectory through the curve, the UA force has to change its trajectory and at the same shift the balance of the amount of force applied.

Think about pushing a lawnmower.  When you come to a curve, you have to change directions to maneuver the mower through the curve. And if the curve is to the right, you have to push harder on the left.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: The Earth Is A Globe. Deal With It on April 17, 2021, 07:43:45 PM
Try this: Put a plate on a baking soda + vinegar rocket. Place a bowl on the plate. The plate is our FE, the bowl is our dome, and the rocket is my proposed rocket. Trigger the rocket, and tell me if, for an observer on the plate, they are always traveling up.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 17, 2021, 08:15:14 PM
Try this: Put a plate on a baking soda + vinegar rocket. Place a bowl on the plate. The plate is our FE, the bowl is our dome, and the rocket is my proposed rocket. Trigger the rocket, and tell me if, for an observer on the plate, they are always traveling up.

Your proposed rocket isn't constantly accelerating at relativistic speeds.  An earth that has been accelerating for any extended amount of time at 9.82m/s2 would be, and the path of its motion would be a hyperbole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_motion_(relativity)

The way I understand (if I am not understanding it correctly, let me know) your model wouldn't work under UA anyway.  Even if such a rocket were tilting with the earth all that would accomplish is pushing the earth at some angle different than 90 degrees.  If the rocket is pushing the earth at a 60 angle, the surface would moving at a 60 angle and the UA version of the normal force that keeps everything pinned to the surface of the earth wouldn't be equally distributed across the whole surface.  That can only happen if the surface stays at 90 degree angle.

In addition, there are complications with rigidity.  The link below explains it better than I can, but the tl;dr is that a rigid body moving with a constant proper acceleration at relativistic speeds will deform because not all parts of the body can move at the same speed.  In order to prevent that, a different amount of force must be applied to different areas, which again would result in an unequal UA force experienced on the surface.  The bottom line is that the whole concept of a flat earth accelerating straight up for any amount of extended time is such an oversimplification of all the things that need to be taken into account, its absurd.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3899.pdf
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2021, 03:25:45 PM
If you read the paper by Joseph Levy (https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0611/0611077.pdf) you would find that on page 10-11 and in his conclusion he says that the aether version of time dilation results from measurement distortion, and that this measurement distortion of time creates identical predictions to SR. How could it be a coincidence that the two are mathematically identical? Levy states that it is not a coincidence. It is not a coincidence because SR is merely trying to simulate the measurement distortion effect.

Einstein didn't "build off the work" of others. He stole and appropriated equations to come up with his alternative theory.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 18, 2021, 07:06:50 PM
If you read the paper by Joseph Levy (https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0611/0611077.pdf) you would find that on page 10-11 and in his conclusion he says that the aether version of time dilation results from measurement distortion, and that this measurement distortion of time creates identical predictions to SR. How could it be a coincidence that the two are mathematically identical? Levy states that it is not a coincidence. It is not a coincidence because SR is merely trying to simulate the measurement distortion effect.

If Levy’s results are indistinguishable from special relativity, then why should we prefer one over the other?  You need to look at which theory can be better incorporated into other accepted principles.  In this case, it is SR.

The ether theory violates the action-reaction principle.  The motion through the ether causes a slowing down of the moving clocks, but how does the slowing down of the moving clocks, in turn, effect the ether?  In contrast, in SR, the motion through spacetime causes spacetime to warp, which in turn causes the clocks to slow down. Warping of spacetime gives us a path to the cause of gravity.

There is no direct path from ether to gravity.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2021, 07:16:38 PM
Say I create an equation showing that it takes longer to walk around a football field than to walk across it. You then come along and use my equation and claim that the time delay was a result of "spacetime distortion".

Obviously we have one explanation which can actually fundamentally explain a situation, and another explanation which uses stolen equations and which invokes an explanation in a hidden untestable layer of reality.

Why should the untestable "spacetime distortion" explanation be given any credence?
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 19, 2021, 07:44:03 PM
Say I create an equation showing that it takes longer to walk around a football field than to walk across it. You then come along and use my equation and claim that the time delay was a result of "spacetime distortion".

Obviously we have one explanation which can actually fundamentally explain a situation, and another explanation which uses stolen equations and which invokes an explanation in a hidden untestable layer of reality.

Why should the untestable "spacetime distortion" explanation be given any credence?

Tom, you have a basic misunderstanding of the concept of what “the warping of space time” is. A more appropriate analogy would be if I measure the time it takes me to make a lap around a football field, why would someone else measure a different time?

The bottom line is you can’t assign the reason to the ether without violating the action-reaction principle.  And "spacetime distortion" is not hidden.  Its called framedragging.  It certainly isn't more hidden or any more untestable that the "ether whirlpool".
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: scomato on April 20, 2021, 09:33:50 AM
Say I create an equation showing that it takes longer to walk around a football field than to walk across it. You then come along and use my equation and claim that the time delay was a result of "spacetime distortion".

Obviously we have one explanation which can actually fundamentally explain a situation, and another explanation which uses stolen equations and which invokes an explanation in a hidden untestable layer of reality.

Why should the untestable "spacetime distortion" explanation be given any credence?

Spacetime distortion is not only testable but the phenomenon is practically applied every day, in correcting GPS satellites desynchronizing of time caused by relativistic effects. 'Untestable' is a blatant lie, it is both testable, observable, and applied in day-to-day life.

The warping of spacetime literally causes errors in GPS positioning due to clocks ticking slower due to the warping of spacetime. Flat Earth doesn't have an explanation for time dilation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Relativity

Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 20, 2021, 04:05:26 PM
Spacetime distortion is not only testable but the phenomenon is practically applied every day, in correcting GPS satellites desynchronizing of time caused by relativistic effects. 'Untestable' is a blatant lie, it is both testable, observable, and applied in day-to-day life.

The warping of spacetime literally causes errors in GPS positioning due to clocks ticking slower due to the warping of spacetime. Flat Earth doesn't have an explanation for time dilation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Relativity
[/quote]

You don't even have to get that technical to test it.

Take a circular disk in an inertial frame.  Its geometry will be Euclidean, the geometery of flat surfaces. If  the disk is ten feet in diameter, it means that we can lay 10 foot long rulers across the diameter and the circumference is pi x 10 feet, which is about 31 feet.   That means that we can work around the full circumference of the disk by laying 31 rulers around the outer rims of the disk.

Take another disk, same diameter, put it in circular motion. It will take more than 31 rulers to work around the circumference of the disk. Circumference is no longer = pi* 10 feet.  Flat Euclidean geometry doesn’t apply when the disk is rotated.  The shape of space is different when an object is in motion.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2021, 05:28:50 PM
Incorrect. Clocks "ticking slower" doesn't prove Special Relativity. That is exactly what we have been talking about. It is also explained by assuming that light is moving in reference to a fundamental frame in Newtonian space.

It's the same situation as the football field example. A person is walking in reference to the frame of the football field. An equation can be made showing that he can walk across the football field faster than walking around it. Aether theory likewise merely proposes that light moves in reference to a fundamental frame.

Obviously if you take the above football field equation and use it for an alternate theory that "spacetime bent" to cause the time delay to happen it is nonsense unless you can confirm that spacetime is actually bending through direct experimentation. The existence of the time delay itself does not prove that the fabric of time bent. And since this spacetime "prediction" also matches the non-spacetime prediction with a clear physical explanation, it is clear that that the spacetime explanation should be discarded for the absurdity it is.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 20, 2021, 05:43:16 PM
Quote
It's the same situation as the football field example. A person is walking in reference to the frame of the football field. An equation can be made showing that he can walk across the football field faster than walking around it. Aether theory likewise merely proposes that light moves in reference to a fundamental frame.

Again, you don't understand the concept at all.  It takes longer to walk around a football field than to go through it because the distance is different  When the distance is different, obviously the time will be.

If we are both measuring the time it takes me to make a lap around a football field and I get a different measurement than you...then we have two different times to travel the same distance

Two completely different concepts.
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2021, 05:59:27 PM
Quote
It's the same situation as the football field example. A person is walking in reference to the frame of the football field. An equation can be made showing that he can walk across the football field faster than walking around it. Aether theory likewise merely proposes that light moves in reference to a fundamental frame.

Again, you don't understand the concept at all.  It takes longer to walk around a football field than to go through it because the distance is different

The distance is also different in the two versions of the light clock example you gave that we looked at earlier:

(https://i.imgur.com/7lPvSUj.gif)

The distance the light has to travel isn't the same on the left hand version and the right hand version. Obviously if light is traveling at a set speed in each version, there will be a delay in bouncing between the mirrors on the right side with the moving clock since there is a greater distance the light has to travel to make the route.

Yet you persist in repeating that "spacetime bent" to cause a slowdown of time on the right hand version, and think that it is a better explanation than the two scenarios simply having different distances.  ::)
Title: Re: My Happiest Thought
Post by: fisherman on April 20, 2021, 06:08:19 PM
Quote
The distance the light has to travel isn't the same on the left hand version and the right hand version. Obviously if light is traveling at a set speed in each version, there will be a delay in bouncing between the mirrors on the right side since there is a greater distance the light has to travel to make the route.

That's the point.  The amount of space the light has to travel to bounce between one end of the clock increases if the clock is moving.  Why? Because it has to move horizontally and vertically, as opposed to just vertically when it is still.

If it is just moving through horizontal space when it is still to get from one end of the clock to the other, but must move through vertical and horizontal space when it is moving, the the shape of the space between the ends of the light clock through which the light moves is different when it is moving than when it is stationary.

EDIT: The problem with your football field analogy is that unlike the ends of the light clock, which never changes, the distance across the 50 yard line and a lap around the whole field is different.  In essence, your using two different light clocks.  If the distance between the ends of one light clock is 20 yards and the difference between the ends of the other light clock is 100 yds...of course your going to come up with different times to travel between the two ends.

A better analogy if you want to stick with the football field is that it would take longer to run a lap around the field if you "zig zag" from one side of the track to the other, while at the same time moving around it.