Author Topic: DIY measurement of time dilation in a gravity well  (Read 4981 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: DIY measurement of time dilation in a gravity well
« Reply #50 on: January 26, 2023, 02:34:05 am »
Wrong.

Just because Einstein didn't believe in black holes even though it was brought to his attention that his theory predicted them doesn't mean they still aren't real or don't exist just because Einstein said they are not real.

The issue here is General Relativity right or wrong.  More is known about GR today than Einstein could have foreseen in his day.  Just like black holes, Einstein was told that his theory predicts the possibility of gravity waves.  Einstein thought that they would be too impossibly weak if they actually do exist to ever be proven.  But General Relativity says they can exist and we did sense their existence by measurement.

Being an expert enough on General Relativity to be able to say it is wrong means you should know this history.
You got 1 more day to answer my simple question which only has around a 1 sentence answer and for extra credit, around another 2-3 sentences describing what the effect is.  Einstein knew exactly the effect I am describing and the proper term of whats going on has been used in numerous scientific papers on the subject as such a a student of spacetime should know.

Good luck Mr. General Relativity is not real...
My apology to Circlotron for polluting his thread – but this Einsteinian stuff duz or might affect his Circlotron-X.
I am a bit puzzled – u ask me to name a force – or praps it is an effect.
I am starting to think that u are talking about the conversion of mass to energy.  Or something related to that.

That is an interesting topic. The fundamental particle is the photon – photons exist in at least 7 possible states – free photons (eg light) – electons (semi confined photons on the surface of good conductors)(electons make electricity) – free electrons (photons that have formed loops by biting their own tails) – fully confined electrons (electons that hug a nucleus instead of a surface)(orbiting electons)(orbiting electons have wrongly been called electrons) – protons (electons that have formed a very tight loop or figure 8 or something) – exotic particles (electons that have formed exotic loops) -- neutrinos (free photons that have formed a pair sharing the same axis but 180 deg out of phase).

When matter disintegrates the confined photons change & bekum free photons.
There is no release of any free energy – free energy duznt exist.
There is not necessarily any conversion of mass to energy -- & if there is a kind of conversion of mass to energy then it duz not necessarily accord with E equals mcc.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong...  Just answer my question.  What is the name given to the GR effect which causes the orbits to decay causing neutron stars and black holes to merge.  I don't care if you think it is real or not.  Or, what you think is causing the effect.  For you to know it is not real, such a general effect of GR, you need to know what's the given name of the effect.  Otherwise you do not know what GR is or how it is intended to work, so you cannot say GR is wrong.
I mentioned the precession of perihelion effect earlier!!!! It is fake.
 

Online BrianHG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8275
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn
Re: DIY measurement of time dilation in a gravity well
« Reply #51 on: January 26, 2023, 02:53:40 am »
Wrong.

Just because Einstein didn't believe in black holes even though it was brought to his attention that his theory predicted them doesn't mean they still aren't real or don't exist just because Einstein said they are not real.

The issue here is General Relativity right or wrong.  More is known about GR today than Einstein could have foreseen in his day.  Just like black holes, Einstein was told that his theory predicts the possibility of gravity waves.  Einstein thought that they would be too impossibly weak if they actually do exist to ever be proven.  But General Relativity says they can exist and we did sense their existence by measurement.

Being an expert enough on General Relativity to be able to say it is wrong means you should know this history.
You got 1 more day to answer my simple question which only has around a 1 sentence answer and for extra credit, around another 2-3 sentences describing what the effect is.  Einstein knew exactly the effect I am describing and the proper term of whats going on has been used in numerous scientific papers on the subject as such a a student of spacetime should know.

Good luck Mr. General Relativity is not real...
My apology to Circlotron for polluting his thread – but this Einsteinian stuff duz or might affect his Circlotron-X.
I am a bit puzzled – u ask me to name a force – or praps it is an effect.
I am starting to think that u are talking about the conversion of mass to energy.  Or something related to that.

That is an interesting topic. The fundamental particle is the photon – photons exist in at least 7 possible states – free photons (eg light) – electons (semi confined photons on the surface of good conductors)(electons make electricity) – free electrons (photons that have formed loops by biting their own tails) – fully confined electrons (electons that hug a nucleus instead of a surface)(orbiting electons)(orbiting electons have wrongly been called electrons) – protons (electons that have formed a very tight loop or figure 8 or something) – exotic particles (electons that have formed exotic loops) -- neutrinos (free photons that have formed a pair sharing the same axis but 180 deg out of phase).

When matter disintegrates the confined photons change & bekum free photons.
There is no release of any free energy – free energy duznt exist.
There is not necessarily any conversion of mass to energy -- & if there is a kind of conversion of mass to energy then it duz not necessarily accord with E equals mcc.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong...  Just answer my question.  What is the name given to the GR effect which causes the orbits to decay causing neutron stars and black holes to merge.  I don't care if you think it is real or not.  Or, what you think is causing the effect.  For you to know it is not real, such a general effect of GR, you need to know what's the given name of the effect.  Otherwise you do not know what GR is or how it is intended to work, so you cannot say GR is wrong.
I mentioned the precession of perihelion effect earlier!!!! It is fake.
Wrong.  That effect is on low density and low mass scales like our sun and the slight elliptical orbit of Mercury and larger distances.
This is not the effect when you have 2 closely equal mass bodies with the density of neutron stars or black holes with insane orbit speeds which can almost be audibly heard, rising in pitch to a merger within a few seconds at the final moments.

Come on, you must know the term which describes this spacetime action.
The effect was also visually observed and measured by the W. M. Keck Observatory looking at an actual star on a steep elliptical orbit around Sagittarius A Star being shredded apart at the heart of our milky way.  Measurement of light spectrum and timing of the debris once again proved this predicted effect in GR.  What is the name of this effect.

(I might have just given too much away...  Though, there was another telescope experiment placed in Earth orbit to test this function...)
« Last Edit: January 26, 2023, 03:06:43 am by BrianHG »
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: DIY measurement of time dilation in a gravity well
« Reply #52 on: January 26, 2023, 04:45:22 am »
Wrong.

Just because Einstein didn't believe in black holes even though it was brought to his attention that his theory predicted them doesn't mean they still aren't real or don't exist just because Einstein said they are not real.

The issue here is General Relativity right or wrong.  More is known about GR today than Einstein could have foreseen in his day.  Just like black holes, Einstein was told that his theory predicts the possibility of gravity waves.  Einstein thought that they would be too impossibly weak if they actually do exist to ever be proven.  But General Relativity says they can exist and we did sense their existence by measurement.

Being an expert enough on General Relativity to be able to say it is wrong means you should know this history.
You got 1 more day to answer my simple question which only has around a 1 sentence answer and for extra credit, around another 2-3 sentences describing what the effect is.  Einstein knew exactly the effect I am describing and the proper term of whats going on has been used in numerous scientific papers on the subject as such a a student of spacetime should know.

Good luck Mr. General Relativity is not real...
My apology to Circlotron for polluting his thread – but this Einsteinian stuff duz or might affect his Circlotron-X.
I am a bit puzzled – u ask me to name a force – or praps it is an effect.
I am starting to think that u are talking about the conversion of mass to energy.  Or something related to that.

That is an interesting topic. The fundamental particle is the photon – photons exist in at least 7 possible states – free photons (eg light) – electons (semi confined photons on the surface of good conductors)(electons make electricity) – free electrons (photons that have formed loops by biting their own tails) – fully confined electrons (electons that hug a nucleus instead of a surface)(orbiting electons)(orbiting electons have wrongly been called electrons) – protons (electons that have formed a very tight loop or figure 8 or something) – exotic particles (electons that have formed exotic loops) -- neutrinos (free photons that have formed a pair sharing the same axis but 180 deg out of phase).

When matter disintegrates the confined photons change & bekum free photons.
There is no release of any free energy – free energy duznt exist.
There is not necessarily any conversion of mass to energy -- & if there is a kind of conversion of mass to energy then it duz not necessarily accord with E equals mcc.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong...  Just answer my question.  What is the name given to the GR effect which causes the orbits to decay causing neutron stars and black holes to merge.  I don't care if you think it is real or not.  Or, what you think is causing the effect.  For you to know it is not real, such a general effect of GR, you need to know what's the given name of the effect.  Otherwise you do not know what GR is or how it is intended to work, so you cannot say GR is wrong.
I mentioned the precession of perihelion effect earlier!!!! It is fake.
Wrong.  That effect is on low density and low mass scales like our sun and the slight elliptical orbit of Mercury and larger distances.
This is not the effect when you have 2 closely equal mass bodies with the density of neutron stars or black holes with insane orbit speeds which can almost be audibly heard, rising in pitch to a merger within a few seconds at the final moments.

Come on, you must know the term which describes this spacetime action.
The effect was also visually observed and measured by the W. M. Keck Observatory looking at an actual star on a steep elliptical orbit around Sagittarius A Star being shredded apart at the heart of our milky way.  Measurement of light spectrum and timing of the debris once again proved this predicted effect in GR.  What is the name of this effect.

(I might have just given too much away...  Though, there was another telescope experiment placed in Earth orbit to test this function...)
No i dont know of any peculiar GTR spacetime actions relating to binary BHs etc.
I dont believe in singularity BHs -- but i believe in ordinary supermassive stars, but these karnt ever be black (praps brown or grey).
Ordinary supermassive binarys must suffer orbital inspiral & ringdown & merger, partly hastened by simple tidal (friction) losses, & partly hastened by relativistic LC effects (LC gives change of shape due to LC, due to spin)(giving another dose of internal friction losses).

Jets (polar jets mainly i think) can be explained lots of ways -- we dont know much aboutem.
 

Online CirclotronTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3363
  • Country: au
Re: DIY measurement of time dilation in a gravity well
« Reply #53 on: January 26, 2023, 07:41:54 am »
In ascending powers of ten:
Archimedes Plutonium and Plutonium atom totality theory.
Gene Ray and Timecube
aetherist and GTR, STR, MMX etc.
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Re: DIY measurement of time dilation in a gravity well
« Reply #54 on: January 26, 2023, 11:07:11 am »
In ascending powers of ten:
Archimedes Plutonium and Plutonium atom totality theory.
Gene Ray and Timecube
aetherist and GTR, STR, MMX etc.
What if your Circlotron-X involved an oscillator at center of Earth & an  oscillator on surface of Earth -- what ticking difference would u expect (ignoring temp etc problems).
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12413
  • Country: au
Re: DIY measurement of time dilation in a gravity well
« Reply #55 on: January 26, 2023, 02:31:17 pm »
For someone who likes to take lazy short cuts (as indicated by their writing) I doubted they would have the discipline to apply focussed thinking and have the ability to wrap their mind around such a subject.  I wasn't wrong.

Nevertheless, this has been the most entertaining waste of time I've spent all week.  ;D
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9003
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: DIY measurement of time dilation in a gravity well
« Reply #56 on: January 26, 2023, 03:19:26 pm »
Should one want to do a gravitational red-shift experiment, it is probably better to use a tower above the Earth's surface (as in the Mössbauer effect gamma-resonance measurements I cited above), rather than a hole in the ground, since there are some minor problems evaluating the gravitational field down a borehole, since the density of the planet is not distributed uniformly, but the field above the surface is more straightforward to calculate.
The original papers and the Argonne historical article about gamma measurements provide guidance as to how much gravitational red shift can be expected with a reasonable tower.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2023, 05:23:43 pm by TimFox »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf