[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Einstein I woke up with a different way to describe the observation. Remember I said you need three things. But let's clarify the three things a bit more. 1: An accelerated reference frame. 2: An at rest reference frame. 3: An object with mass. In the rocketship in deep space, the feeling of weight is present with the rocket motors on. The at rest reference frame becomes evident when the rocket motors are turned off. Please note that the at rest reference frame may be moving in relation to us. I tend to think of normal spacetime as an at rest reference frame. When we push against this reference frame with the rocket motors on, the sensation of weight becomes apparent.

Einstein .... We may be at cross purposes. "the feeling of weight is present with the rocket motors on" .... This is what I term acceleration

"The at rest reference frame becomes evident when the rocket motors are turned off."
This is what I term velocity.

At the moment that bloody Rascal is giving me so much homework that I haven't found the time to fully study your posts. This thread is going way to fast.

If the acceleration you refer to is gravity then this is an acceleration not only thru space but thru time. Spacetime.

We don't feel the acceleration of earth because we have adapted to feel our 'weight' as normal ?? but nevertheless 90 kilos is my 'feeling' of acceleration.

I am really interested, but trying to comprehend Rascal's posts is giving me a headache.
Rascal slow down !!

cool bananas ... greg

ps: I am thinking for a while.

[Einstein]

Graybeard

If the acceleration you refer to is gravity then this is an acceleration not only thru space but thru time. Spacetime.

You have to be careful when making assumptions about motion through time. Because I think that's where Einstein's Equivalence Principal falls apart. Even though it is logical to equate gravitational weight with rocketship thust weight, it becomes apparent that time dilation comes into the picture for the rockship thrust. No accumulated time dilation effect occurs with gravitational weight. But this one observation does give clues about the nature of time that I haven't seen anyone theoretically explore.

Now let's get back to the "at rest reference frame" and the "accelerated reference frame." Since I pointed out that these reference frames are shared by both gravitational and EM phenomena, they really aren't the same because of the time dilation discrepency. It's almost as if there were different types of spatial manifolds present that have some things in common. But I tend to look at it as just different types of particles. Here we have two types of particles for EM and two for Gravity type phenomena. We know that particles usually come in threes. So that does logically suggest that there is a yet unobserved reference frame state for EM and Gravity. Call them anti accelerated reference frames. The antigravity reference frame has been suspected but I haven't seen anyone talk about an anti acceleration reference frame for EM phenomena.

Getting a little off topic here, so let's get back on track. My original post was directed at Rascal. I was curious about how the expansion of space could be related to gravity. Personally I just look at space as been a separate type of spatial manifold. Where time flows in the positive direction. Time flow in a gravity field seems to want to go in the opposite direction. Is there a logical way to connect the two?

[Graybeard]

Einstein ... Hmmmmmm ...... I will think about this post. I don't have a problem with Einsteins Equivalence principle. I think apparent time dilation occurs between all objects that are accelerating/decelerating in relation to each other.

I am going away for three days to Cave rock. Will print out your post and Rascals and think on them and will get back here Sunday.

good post ... thanks .. greg

[Graybeard]

Einstein ... this is from a 1929 paper by Paul J. Heyl. To me it indicates that time dilation is only apparent. The full paper is in my blog under 'simple science' if you wish to read it all

What do you think of this explanation

P J. Heyl .... 1929 For example, suppose that we, with our instruments for measuring space and time, are located on a platform, which we believe to be stationary. We cannot be altogether certain of this, for there is no visible object in the universe save another similar platform carrying an observer likewise equipped: but when we observe relative motion between our platform and the other it pleases our intuition to suppose our platform at rest and to ascribe all the motion to the other. Einstein asserts that if this relative velocity were great enough we might notice some strange happenings on the other platform. True, a rather high velocity would be necessary, something comparable with the speed of light, say 100,000 thousand miles a second; and it is tacitly assumed that we would be able to get a glimpse of the moving system as it flashed by. Granting this, what would we see? Einstein asserts that if there were a circle painted on the moving platform it would appear to us as an ellipse with its short diameter in the direction of its motion. The amount of this shortening would depend on the speed with which the system is moving, being quite imperceptible at ordinary speeds. in the limit, as the speed approached that of light, the circle would flatten completely into a straight line - its diameter perpendicular to the direction of motion. Of this shortening, says Einstein, the moving observer will be unconscious, for not only is the circle flattened in the direction of motion, but the platform itself and all it carries (including the observer) share in this shortening. Even the observer's measuring rod is not exempt. Laid along the diameter of the circle which is perpendicular to the line of motion it would indicate, say, ten centimetres; placed along the shortened diameter, the rod, being itself now shortened in the same ration, would apparently indicate the same length as before, (ten centimetres) and the moving observer would have no suspicion of what we might be seeing. in fact, he might with equal right suppose himself stationary and lay all the motion to the account of our platform. And if we had a circle painted on our floor it would appear flattened to him, though not to us. Again, the clock on the observer's platform would exhibit to us, though not to him, an equally eccentric behaviour. Suppose that other platform stooped long enough for a comparison (synchronisation) of clocks, and then backing off to get a start, flashed by us at high speed. As it passed we would see that the other clock was apparently slow as compared with ours, but of this the moving observer would be unconscious. But could he not observe our clock? Certainly, just as easily as we could see his. And would he not see that our clock was now faster than his? "No," says Einstein. "on the contrary, he would take it to be slower" Here is a paradox indeed ! A's clock appears slow to B while at the same time B's clock appears slow to A ! Which is right? To this question Einstein answers indifferently: "Either. It all depends on the point of view." In asserting that the rate of the moving clock is altered by its motion Einstein has not in mind anything so materialistic as the motion interfering with the proper functioning of the pendulum or the balance wheel. it is something deeper and more abtruse than that. He means that the flow of time itself is changed by the motion of the system, and that the clock is but fulfilling its natural function in keeping pace with the altered rate of time.

Back Sunday-Monday

cool bananas ... greg

[Einstein]

Graybeard

Einstein ... this is from a 1929 paper by Paul J. Heyl. To me it indicates that time dilation is only apparent. The full paper is in my blog under 'simple science' if you wish to read it all What do you think of this explanation

Ok, I read it through. I can obviously see what was determined. In this scenario communication between the relative observers is based on information only traveling back and forth between observers at the speed of light. At 100,000 miles per second of relative velocity between observers each of the clocks appears to be running slower. In other words each observer sees the other observers clock as running slower. But no account is taken for the actual slowing down of time that does occur to the observer traveling at the high velocity. I have never come across a logical arguement to show how Einstein came to the conclusion that time does actually run slower for objects with very high velocity. But I do believe his prediction has been verified with experiment.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Einstein In this scenario communication between the relative observers is based on information only traveling back and forth between observers at the speed of light. At 100,000 miles per second of relative velocity between observers each of the clocks appears to be running slower. In other words each observer sees the other observers clock as running slower. But no account is taken for the actual slowing down of time that does occur to the observer traveling at the high velocity.

Einstein ..... its not that the observations are restricted by the speed of light. The observation of course, is impossible. It is taken as a given, a thought experiment, that the observations can be taken, an 'imagine if'. The mechanics of the observation are not being considered here.

Spacetime alters in its 'ratio' between observers. Neither observer is privileged over the other. The two observers are in different 'ratios' of spacetime while acceleration exists between them. I don't really like the word ratio.

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

Dear Rascal ... OK. I have read all of Chapter 7 (or VII) in depth.

I see nothing implausible with it, on face value. What you have posted consists of around 3500 words. Obviously this is a summary.

I have many questions as parts of it appear contradictory. I know that others have also criticised this for a 're-hash' of existing ideas.

For the moment I would like to let it stand. I feel that you and I may have a different understanding of matter. If it is OK with you I would like to ask some questions regarding matter so that we may discover where/if we differ. Then we can take up from this point again.

Specifically, my questions will relate to whether matter is continuous or discontinuous. You, obviously will be taking the part of Aristotle. I will be taking the part of Democritus. . is that OK with you?

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

Dear Rascal ... Whats happened here. You asked me to get back to you ??

cool bananas ... greg

[RascalPuff]

Might 'the others' qualify how & why the issued material is a 're-hash'?

Good to hear from you, Greg.

- RP

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Might 'the others' qualify how & why the issued material is a 're-hash'? Good to hear from you, Greg. - RP

Perhaps that was too strong a term. Roy Orbison wrote and sung 'Blue Bayou', Linda Ronstadt made it famous and, if the truth be known, sung it better.

In the same way Kris Kristofferson wrote and sung 'Bobby McGee'. Do you prefer his version or Linda Ronstadt ?

The 'others' will have to speak up themselves.

I am more interested in your 'take' on matter. Once I know it, I will better be able to understand your theory. Rascal, I don't understand how you can claim to understand gravity and at the same time appear puzzled as to why our atomsphere hasn't been stripped by the moon. I think you take the mickey quite often.

Waiting for your permission to question you on 'matter'. Don't forget, no answer is an answer in itself.

cool bananas ... greg