General > General Technical Chat
DIY measurement of time dilation in a gravity well
SiliconWizard:
--- Quote from: aetherist on January 26, 2023, 12:17:41 am ---
--- Quote from: Circlotron on January 25, 2023, 11:57:47 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on January 25, 2023, 11:32:08 pm ---AHA. Congratulations. U have anticipated & replied to my most recent reply.
--- End quote ---
Please define the word “recent”.
--- End quote ---
Recent means in the near past.
Past means an earlier time.
Time is based on ticking.
Ticking is a process.
Processes are illusions.
Illusions are due to memory.
Memory is due to consciousness.
Consciousness is a mystery.
--- End quote ---
So you used "recent", a term you yourself define as being based on an illusion.
From there, can't we conclude that you are being delusional? ::)
BrianHG:
--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 26, 2023, 01:28:44 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on January 26, 2023, 12:17:41 am ---
--- Quote from: Circlotron on January 25, 2023, 11:57:47 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on January 25, 2023, 11:32:08 pm ---AHA. Congratulations. U have anticipated & replied to my most recent reply.
--- End quote ---
Please define the word “recent”.
--- End quote ---
Recent means in the near past.
Past means an earlier time.
Time is based on ticking.
Ticking is a process.
Processes are illusions.
Illusions are due to memory.
Memory is due to consciousness.
Consciousness is a mystery.
--- End quote ---
So you used "recent", a term you yourself define as being based on an illusion.
From there, can't we conclude that you are being delusional? ::)
--- End quote ---
Shhhh, be quiet... I snagged him on something he cannot Google or just ask anyone about. Let's see how long it takes him to answer my General Relativity question.
aetherist:
--- Quote from: BrianHG on January 26, 2023, 12:27:23 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on January 26, 2023, 12:07:23 am ---
--- Quote from: BrianHG on January 25, 2023, 11:39:21 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on January 25, 2023, 11:27:56 pm ---Do u have any examples of the existence of pure energy.
Or any mention of such existence in modern physics?
I wont hold my breath.
--- End quote ---
My god, the Casimir effect proving vacuum point energy. Is your knowledge of experimental proof physics so terrible as seen by a number of your recent posts...
--- End quote ---
Hmmmm -- the Casimir Effect (a quantum theory effect) says that Einstein is wrong -- yet u rub the Casimir Effect in my face as an example that supposedly helps your case that Einstein is correct.
In addition -- Einstein did not believe in the BB -- yet u invoke BB to help your case that Einstein is correct.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return -- it never left.
--- End quote ---
How come you did not say that this doesn't prove energy does not exist?
Ok Mr expert on General Relativity enough to know it is wrong, then you must also know the name of the General Relativity effect which causes this:
Approximately 1.5 years ago, LIGO recorded a relatively close gravity wave from the collision of two neutron stars instead of black holes whose collision and explosion was proven as it was observed by telescope at the same time, seen as a nova releasing new heavier elements into our universe. Without friction in space, why do such high gravity mass objects orbits decay and accelerate so quickly? What is the given name to what's responsible for this rapidly accelerating decay in orbit? Why do the mass of these objects measured by LIGO and observed by telescope match the predicted orbit decay by General Relativity's fundamental mathematical structure?
There was also another telescope captured image within our Milky Way galaxy which has also illustrated and proved the existence of this force, so we know it is real. I'll let you know as a prize if you figure out the effect I'm talking about.
--- End quote ---
For starters – Einstein did not believe in gravity waves – certainly he did not believe in LIGO gravity waves, ie gravity waves that carry energy. Now to your first question.
Re the Casimir Effect proving that space contains zero-point energy – i don’t remember ever having a deep think about the Casimir Effect – but i suppose that 2 metallic plates a few nanometres apart might have an attraction – the answer will involve electons – electons are photons that hug the surface of conductors – electons are what causes electricity on a wire – the attraction will involve the behaviour of electons – plus it might involve the behaviour of common electrons on the surfaces (ie electron charge) – now, electons repel electons, & electrons repel electrons, & electons repel electrons, they all have negative charge – hence the cause of attraction is in the first instance contradictory – the plates should experience repulsion not attraction – but i will have a think – yes, i think i have it -- as Feynman said "like attracts like" – i agree – there is the answer
But the Casimir Effect has nothing to do with your question re whether energy exists as a material thing (or having some of the properties of material things in some instances).
Re your second question. I don’t understand it. If LIGO uses GTR theory to calculate masses & orbit decay etc then how can u assert that the masses & orbit decay etc validate GTR? If A is used to calculate B, then how does B prove A?
Re the name of a force. All forces are gravitational or electro-magnetic or centrifugal.
Praps u are referring to the supposed precession of perihelion effect – which i suppose is not really a force (according to Einsteinists).
Anyhow, this GTR precessional effect is fake.
Re LIGO. LIGO is a fake-fraud. There has not been much happening at LIGO lately -- wonder why?
As more LIGOs are made we will see that they all prove that GWs dont exist.
This will be funny. Karnt wait.
aetherist:
--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 26, 2023, 01:28:44 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on January 26, 2023, 12:17:41 am ---
--- Quote from: Circlotron on January 25, 2023, 11:57:47 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on January 25, 2023, 11:32:08 pm ---AHA. Congratulations. U have anticipated & replied to my most recent reply.
--- End quote ---
Please define the word “recent”.
--- End quote ---
Recent means in the near past.
Past means an earlier time.
Time is based on ticking.
Ticking is a process.
Processes are illusions.
Illusions are due to memory.
Memory is due to consciousness.
Consciousness is a mystery.
--- End quote ---
So you used "recent", a term you yourself define as being based on an illusion.
From there, can't we conclude that you are being delusional? ::)
--- End quote ---
Einstein said that time is an illusion -- so, if Einstein ever used the word recent (or at least its German equivalent), then that makes he & i both delusional in your opinion.
SiliconWizard:
--- Quote from: aetherist on January 26, 2023, 01:46:21 am ---
--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 26, 2023, 01:28:44 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on January 26, 2023, 12:17:41 am ---
--- Quote from: Circlotron on January 25, 2023, 11:57:47 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on January 25, 2023, 11:32:08 pm ---AHA. Congratulations. U have anticipated & replied to my most recent reply.
--- End quote ---
Please define the word “recent”.
--- End quote ---
Recent means in the near past.
Past means an earlier time.
Time is based on ticking.
Ticking is a process.
Processes are illusions.
Illusions are due to memory.
Memory is due to consciousness.
Consciousness is a mystery.
--- End quote ---
So you used "recent", a term you yourself define as being based on an illusion.
From there, can't we conclude that you are being delusional? ::)
--- End quote ---
Einstein said that time is an illusion -- so, if Einstein ever used the word recent (or at least its German equivalent), then that makes he & i both delusional in your opinion.
--- End quote ---
That's not an opinion there, just a fact.
Well, that is either being delusional, or yanking everyone's chain. You may know which one it is for you, but for Einstein, maybe not.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version