The expanding universe can also be seen as a relativistic 'spacestretch'

[Maartenn100]

Fishstick never said why it was bunk.
He doesn't do it here either.

Because it's a new idea. And they don't like new ideas. Even when it's reasonable thinking and intellectually honest.

[Fishstick]

Oh I'm sure you'll do a much better demonstration of that than I ever could.

[Maartenn100]

is that an unovercomming problem, Dafyd? To say 'yes' while it's obvious?
Apparantly.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

different clocks, different measurement of motion.

That's what the theory of relativity says, yes. That everything except the speed of light is relative to the particular frame of reference you are in.

The earth is stationary from where I'm sitting, going round in a circle relative to someone who is sitting inside the sun, moving in a spiral relative to someone who is moving on a course which is parallel with the sun's through the galaxy, moving in a much more complicated way for someone who is, say, orbiting another star or outside the galaxy, etc etc. This is well known and understood.

And?

[Maartenn100]

The resistance against a paradigm that is talking about something ungraspabel as 'the observer' (Einstein used that concept too, but he mathematicised this aspect of reality to give it a materialistic objective standard) is enormous.

But 'the observer' is a part of the objective reality. An unmeasurable part. A zeropoint.

That's what I honestly think. But some kind of people do not like that.

[Maartenn100]

Quote:

That's what the theory of relativity says, yes. That everything except the speed of light is relative to the particular frame of reference you are in.

That's right.

Quote:

The earth is stationary from where I'm sitting, going round in a circle relative to someone who is sitting inside the sun, moving in a spiral relative to someone who is moving on a course which is parallel with the sun's through the galaxy, moving in a much more complicated way for someone who is, say, orbiting another star or outside the galaxy, etc etc. This is well known and understood.

I never saw that in relativity, but that's exactly what I'm saying here. Thank you.
Finallly, we are getting somewhere.
you agree.
You only ask the question, why is that important.

it's a strange way, Pixel42, "
A very strange way. Indirectly saying: yes.
You could also say: yes, you have a point here.

As if it's very difficult to say 'yes'.
you rather say: "so what", "and", what's the big deal here..etc.

you see people, it's reasonable what i'm saying and I'm glad that people say 'yes' (indirectly because they can't stand it to say 'yes)'.

yes, and I will explain (again) why my hypothesis is not only truth, but also 'relevant'.


Ok, now we are getting somewhere,

I will explain (again) why this is a very very important and new interpretation..

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Fishstick

Anyone unfamiliar with Maarten I'll give fair warning: He's been doing this 'gravitational relativism' thing on flemish skeptics forums as well and recently got a 2 week 'cool off'-ban/probation for posting things like this. It was bunk in dutch and I dont expect to be less bunk in a different language.

I know,I've read some of it. Bunk of the first water.

[Roboramma]

Maarten: Please show your work: if you are correct then you should be able to derive the hubble constant.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Fishstick never said why it was bunk.
He doesn't do it here either.

Because it's a new idea. And they don't like new ideas. Even when it's reasonable thinking and intellectually honest.

It's bunk because it's bunk. Show me the maths that proves that is not bunk and I will believe it. Reasonable thinking is not a phrase I would use in connection with your ideas. You are the one making the claim. It is up to you to prove it with rigoorous logic and maths. Go ahead.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Maarten: Please show your work: if you are correct then you should be able to derive the hubble constant.

Yes,we could start there. The floor is yours,Maarten.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

ok, than the idea that the twin brothers would have the same age is totally wrong. ok.




That's not what my theory predicts.

Because my hypothesis (I see it as postulates and another interpretation)
is that:

because of the timedifference (gravitational timedilation) there is been measured motion.

And that's a fact. That's not even a theory. That's a fact. You can measure a moving Earth, relative to you, when you are outside the gravitational field. You can measure a moving Earth around the sun, once you are outside the Solar system. These are measurements of the movements of that same object, given that frame of reference. Given your new position in that field.




I know it can be difficult to understand.

This is what I mean:

you can go to youtube (I may not post an url right now untill I have at least 15 posts)

and type on 'youtube':
Earth Rotation & Revolution around a moving Sun

These are different 'frames of reference' in the field. And imagine a train moving on Earth. All these moves will be different given a different reference point in the field.

And you can think that the traindriver and the people on Earth are thinking that this train is trying to come near reaching the speed of light. Their idea of 'straightforward acceleration' their idea...

Do you see the 'spiral motion' of the Earth, Dafydd? Do you? YES OR NO?
I'm waiting for an answer Dafydd!! Yes or no?

Stop calling your gek idee a theory please.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

yes or no, Dafydd?

we are waiting.

No,you are waiting. Anyway,the Earth describes a helix through sapce,not a spiral. The radius of a spiral gets bigger. I'm surprised the you don't know that,given your thorough knowledge of celestial mechanics. Drink een pint voor mij.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

I never saw that in relativity, but that's exactly what I'm saying here. Thank you.

You're welcome. Though you could have just, you know, read up on relativity.

Quote:

it's a strange way, Pixel 12, to say: yes, you have a point here. A very strange way.

What I'm saying is that you have simply grasped a very simple point that's been understood for centuries, even before Einstein. Good for you, now read up on relativity.

[RussDill]

I always really hate these threads. When I hear the individual post, I can see exactly where the stray off course. I really, really, really want to help. Relativity is already a cool idea. Einstein's extensions to it in regard to EM and later gravity are just plain neat. And I think its a very special aha moment for everyone that gets interested in it when they "get it".

I really wish I could help Maartenn with his quest to "get it". But I'm already getting that vibe that he isn't interested at all in what Einstein's theories actually explain and how all kinds of seemingly paradoxical situations actually get tied up in a neat little bow.

What do you say Maartenn, would you like to go on a journey of discovery? Stand on the shoulders of giants?


OT: Armageddon was on TV earlier today. I'd like to apologise to any of my neighbours that heard the screaming and yelling about gravity, acceleration, etc.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

That's right.



I never saw that in relativity, but that's exactly what I'm saying here. Thank you.
Finallly, we are getting somewhere.
you agree.
You only ask the question, why is that important.

it's a strange way, Pixel42, "
A very strange way. Indirectly saying: yes.
You could also say: yes, you have a point here.

As if it's very difficult to say 'yes'.
you rather say: "so what", "and", what's the big deal here..etc.

you see people, it's reasonable what i'm saying and I'm glad that people say 'yes' (indirectly because they can't stand it to say 'yes)'.

yes, and I will explain (again) why my hypothesis is not only truth, but also 'relevant'.


Ok, now we are getting somewhere,

I will explain (again) why this is a very very important and new interpretation..

Everything in this post is true and also well understood. There's no new interpretation here. Your apparent new interpretation is that somehow this explains the red shifting of galaxies, but you haven't actually explained how, let alone demonstrated your ability to do so.

So, once again, show how you derive the hubble constant, because if you can't, then it's clear that you can't explain it. And if you can't explain it, I'll be charitable and suggest that perhaps that's simply because you haven't worked out the math far enough, that's fine, but then this is at best "here's a guess at something that would be very interesting if true, but I haven't actually worked it out to see if it's true or not."

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

different clocks, different measurement of motion.

Time,not motion. You really should get a basic grasp on this subject before you comment on it. Dag makker.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Espacially for Dafydd:

type in on 'youtube':

Earth Rotation & Revolution around a moving Sun

These are different 'frames of reference' in the field. And imagine a train moving on Earth. All these moves will be different given a different reference point in the field.

And you can think that the traindriver and the people on Earth are thinking that this train is trying to come near reaching the speed of light. Their idea of 'straightforward acceleration' their idea...

Do you see the 'spiral motion' of the Earth, Dafydd? Do you? YES OR NO?
We are all waiting for an answer Dafydd!!

Only: Yes or no?

Proof by youtube,the mark of the crank. Got any maths?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

So, once again, show how you derive the hubble constant, because if you can't, then it's clear that you can't explain it. And if you can't explain it, I'll be charitable and suggest that perhaps that's simply because you haven't worked out the math far enough, that's fine, but then this is at best "here's a guess at something that would be very interesting if true, but I haven't actually worked it out to see if it's true or not."

A fair assesment. Let's sit back and wait for Maarten to provide some equations.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Fishstick never said why it was bunk.
He doesn't do it here either.

Because it's a new idea. And they don't like new ideas. Even when it's reasonable thinking and intellectually honest.

Who are "they"? Names please.

[Maartenn100]

What's new here:

1) not only C of the speed of light is constant for all observers.
2) Also G is a constant in relativity given different clocks.-
That fact is enough to deduce that all observed fenomena of space-stretch
will have to do with relativity.
3)The object were a hypothetical twinbrother is moving away from
4)is moving away from him or here too in the gravitational field.
5)'straightforward acceleation' is relative
6)you must follow a coriolispath to follow a straight line given another frame of reference.
7)the observer is the measurement of space and time
8)the clock of the observer always ticks normal, so elsewhere something must change.
9) The expanding universe is a relativistic spacestretch, given by our frame of reference.
10) Wherever we are, the starclusters are redschifting ("Isotropie" Friedmann) is because of relativity.
you can deduce this from these postulates:

- the friedmann postulate of isotropy
- G as a constant in relativity
- the known theory that when there is a different clock, observed spacestretch would be a result of relativistic effect.
- Hubble's law.

11)timedifference - motionmeasurement and spacedilation (distortion) are not only the fact in a uniform gravitational field. But also in the universe.
12) the universe is an emergent object with mass. We can see the influence of this mass on far starclusters by their redshifting.
13)No Big Bangtheorie is needed to explain the expanding 'space'.

What's already known?

the math (geometry, coriolispath, curved paths, etc)
the scientific formula (Hubble's law, laws of gravity)

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

The resistance against a paradigm that is talking about something ungraspabel as 'the observer' (Einstein used that concept too, but he mathematicised this aspect of reality to give it a materialistic objective standard) is enormous.

But 'the observer' is a part of the objective reality. An unmeasurable part. A zeropoint.

That's what I honestly think. But some kind of people do not like that.

It's not a question of liking,it is a question of proof. Do you have any? Stringing words together like "materialistic objective standard" does not impress us. I can do that too. Physical subjective paradigm. Material continous plenum. It's easy.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

What's new here:

- not only C of the speed of light is constant for all observers.
- Also G is a constant in relativity given different clocks.-
That fact is enough to know that all observed fenomena of spacestretch
will have to do with relativity.
The object were a hypothetical twinbrother is moving away from
, is moving away from him or here too in the gravitational field.
- 'straightforward acceleation' is relative
- you must follow a coriolispath to follow a straight line given another frame of reference.
- the observer is the measurement of space and time
- the clock of the observer always ticks normal, so elsewhere something must change.
- the expanding universe is a relativistic spacestretch, given by our frame of reference.
- Wherever we are, the starclusters are redschifting ("Isotropie" Friedmann) is because of relativity.
- timedifference - motionmeasurement and spacedilation (distortion) are not only the fact in a uniform gravitational field. But also in the universe.
- the universe is an emergent object with mass. We can see the influence of this mass on far starclusters by their redshifting.
No Big Bangtheorie is needed to explain the expanding 'space'.

What's already known?

the math (geometry, coriolispath, curved paths, etc)
the scientific formula (Hubble's law, laws of gravity)

Sigh. I hate spam sandwiches.

[dafydd]

Maarten,shall we contact the Nobel Prize committee and tell them to award this year's physics prize to you? We can leave out the tiresome business of you actually having to prove something.

[RussDill]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Also G is a constant in relativity given different clocks.[/b]-

uhhh.....OK. 2 things. First, G is a constant in relativity, in physics, etc.
Second, is no such thing as "different clocks". No clocks are "special", the all obey the same laws of physics. Do you mean different inertial reference frames?

[Maartenn100]

(gravitational) timedilation is a better term in this case. You are right

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by RussDill

uhhh.....OK. 2 things. First, G is a constant in relativity, in physics, etc.
Second, is no such thing as "different clocks". No clocks are "special", the all obey the same laws of physics. Do you mean different inertial reference frames?

I think so. It's hard to tell. If read a basic introduction to relativity it could help him to explain his ideas.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

(gravitational) timedilation is a better term in this case. You are right

No,different internal reference frames is the right term. Russdill did not use the words time dilation. Stop inventing things.

[Maartenn100]

Quote:

uhhh.....OK. 2 things. First, G is a constant in relativity, in physics, etc

G is the gravitational constant yes.
But is it ever been related to realtivity in a way that this question is been asked? (be honest please):


One year for the travelling twin will be five years on Earth for the twin who was left behind. (fictional example, twinparadox)

Imaging you are a travelling twin who has a brother on Earth. And you want to go near the speed of light.
You also like to look back to the object Earth with a large telescope.

At what speed does the Earth turn around its axis and at what speed does Earth turn around the sun with my twin brother on it, given my clock?

Remember:

One day = one turn around its axis
One year = 365 rotations around Earth’s axis, 12 wobbles with a moon, and one circular motion around the sun.

Given the fact that one day for me is one year for my twin brother, given my speed.

So would that object Earth will fall slower, given my clock. Or not?

One year is equal to one move around the sun
One day is equal to one turn around Earth’s axis.

Is this question been explicitely asked in physics in the twinparadox?
And been answered?

I do not understand this.
You are wobbling between 'this is bunk' and 'its already been said'
but you can't argue both correctly.

[RussDill]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

(gravitational) timedilation is a better term in this case. You are right

I think your confusion might come from your physiology background. Relativity and its effects are not a perception nor do they have anything to do with perception. And no observer ever "experiences" the effect of time dilation, not the twin on earth, nor the twin that leaves earth. They merely measure the passage of time in other inertial reference frames moving with respect to them selves as passing more slowly.

The twins are different ages because they took different paths through space-time. Just as you can take two different roads when you drive and cover a different amount of ground.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

G is the gravitational constant yes.
But is it ever been related to realtivity in a way that this question is been asked? (be honest please):


One year for the travelling twin will be five years on Earth for the twin who was left behind. (fictional example, twinparadox)

Imaging you are a travelling twin who has a brother on Earth. And you want to go near the speed of light.
You also like to look back to the object Earth with a large telescope.

At what speed does the Earth turn around its axis and at what speed does Earth turn around the sun with my twin brother on it, given my clock?
Remember:

One day = one turn around its axis
One year = 365 rotations around Earth’s axis, 12 wobbles with a moon, and one circular motion around the sun.

Given the fact that one day for me is one year for my twin brother, given my speed.

So would that object Earth will fall slower, given my clock. Or not?

One year is equal to one move around the sun
One day is equal to one turn around Earth’s axis.

Is this question been explicitely asked in physics in the twinparadox?
And been answered?

I do not understand this.
You are wobbling between 'this is bunk' and 'its already been said'
but you can't argue both correctly.

It doesn't matter. You could leave the twin on a body that was revolving at any speed. Just because you don't understand something does not mean that it is not valid. You are arguing from ignorance. Please read "The ABC Of Relativity" by Bertrand Russell. They have it in the Permeke. It is very easy reading for the beginner and the Twin Paradox is explained.

[RussDill]

Originally Posted by dafydd

No,different internal reference frames is the right term. Russdill did not use the words time dilation. Stop inventing things.

dafydd, you can just call me 'Russ'

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by RussDill

I think your confusion might come from your physiology background. Relativity and its effects are not a perception nor do they have anything to do with perception. And no observer ever "experiences" the effect of time dilation, not the twin on earth, nor the twin that leaves earth. They merely measure the passage of time in other inertial reference frames moving with respect to them selves as passing more slowly.

The twins are different ages because they took different paths through space-time. Just as you can take two different roads when you drive and cover a different amount of ground.

That is true. To experience the effects of time dilation you would have to be in two places at the same time. Maarten,physical processes in the Sun are running at a different speed,relative to the Earth,because of the Sun's gravity. Are you experiencing that?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by RussDill

dafydd, you can just call me 'Russ'

Thank you. But please don't call me Daf,it reminds me of a certain duck.

[RussDill]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

G is the gravitational constant yes.
But is it ever been related to realtivity in a way that this question is been asked? (be honest please):

If G was different in another inertial reference frame, it'd be immediately self evident. Not only that, you'd run into number of contradictions. The headline of relativity, even back in the days of Galileo, is that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. So yes, the question about G has been asked, and answered.

Quote:

At what speed does the Earth turn around its axis and at what speed does Earth turn around the sun with my twin brother on it, given my clock?

So would that object Earth will fall slower, given my clock. Or not?

Everything on the Earth would appear to be happening very, very slowly (the object on the earth would fall slower), according to the relation:

dt' = dt/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Quote:

Is this question been explicitely asked in physics in the twinparadox?
And been answered?

The whole point of the twin paradox is that both twins will observe the clock of the other running more slowly then their own. But when they return, the twin that left and came back is younger.

The question has been asked and answered. It had to be for the twin paradox to even exist.

[Maartenn100]

Quote:

It doesn't matter.

It DOES matter.

1 day = 1 Earth's rotation.
1 year = 1 rotation around the sun.

When their clocks differ they must see different moves of the same object.

The traveling twin would see 1 rotation on its axis.
If the twin broter would see 1 rotation around the sun in one day, then G is not constant.
If it's one rotation for the traveling twin in 1 day, all the other objects will fall as if he was one day on Earth. The universe and the other twin on that Earth would look like one day was passing.

But the people on that object Earth are measuring one year, for them. They measure 165 rotations.

So this can not match, except when their are gravititional relativistic 'disformations'

Originally Posted by Dafydd

It doesn't matter

.

???

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

G is the gravitational constant yes.
But is it ever been related to realtivity in a way that this question is been asked? (be honest please):

No-one has ever suggested that G, or any other physical constant, might vary according to frame of reference, so no-one has bothered to spell out that none of them do.

Quote:

Imaging you are a travelling twin who has a brother on Earth. And you want to go near the speed of light.
You also like to look back to the object Earth with a large telescope.

At what speed does the Earth turn around its axis and at what speed does Earth turn around the sun with my twin brother on it, given my clock?

Remember:

One day = one turn around its axis
One year = 365 rotations around Earth’s axis, 12 wobbles with a moon, and one circular motion around the sun.

Given the fact that one day for me is one year for my twin brother, given my speed.

So would that object Earth will fall slower, given my clock. Or not?

Observed through your telescope everything on earth, including its rotation on its axis and around the sun, will appear slowed. Is that what you're asking?

Quote:

Is this question been explicitely asked in physics in the twinparadox?
And been answered?

It's known that everything is slowed, and the earth's rotation is part of everything, so the answer is obvious. I doubt anyone else has ever considered the question worth asking.

Quote:

I do not understand this.
You are wobbling between 'this is bunk' and 'its already been said'
but you can't argue both correctly.

The facts that you are stating are well known. The speculation you are basing on those facts appears to be bunk.

[RussDill]

BTW. Lookup muons from cosmic rays. They are great example of how relativity works.

Muons are produced by cosmic rays colliding with the upper atmosphere. Many head straight towards the earth and their half life is very short (in the microsecond range). At their speeds, that would be 660m of travel. However, many make it to the Earth (much more than would be anticipated given their half life).

Due to the effects of time-dialation, we (on the earth) observe their half time as much longer since their are travelling a significant fraction of the speed of light.

Now, how can it be from the muon's inertial reference frame that they have time to make it to the earth? Another relativistic effect, length contraction. The distance they have to travel is much shorter.

[Maartenn100]

Quote:

The whole point of the twin paradox (and your math) is that both twins will observe the clock of the other running more slowly then their own. But when they return, the twin that left and came back is younger.

The question has been asked and answered. It had to be for the twin paradox to even exist.

yes that's truth. The twinparadox (and your math) was to explain SRT, not relativistic effects with the GRT.

But I used the twinparadox to explain relativistic effects in the gravitational fields and to explain the relation with G as a constant.

To address the fact that the relativistic effects in the gravitational field (like coriolispath versus straight line etc) are because of the constant G.


So, I will explain (again) what's new and what's already been said:

What's new here:

- not only C of the speed of light is constant for all observers.
- Also G is a constant in relativity, CAUSING timdilation, space-expansion and relative motion.
That fact is enough to deduce that all observed fenomena of spacestretch/expansion
will have something to do with relativity.

The object were a hypothetical twinbrother is moving away from
, is moving away from him or here too in the gravitational field. (in GRT, not in SRT)
- 'straightforward acceleation' is relative
- you must follow a coriolispath to follow a straight line given another frame of reference.
- the observer is the measurement of space and time
- the clock of the observer always ticks normal, so elsewhere something must change.
- the expanding universe is a relativistic spacestretch, given by our frame of reference.
- Wherever we are, the starclusters are redschifting ("Isotropie" Friedmann) is because of relativity.
- timedifference - motionmeasurement and spacedilation (distortion) are not only the fact in a uniform gravitational field. But also in the universe.
- the universe is an emergent object with mass. We can see the influence of this mass on far starclusters by their redshifting.
No Big Bangtheorie is needed to explain the expanding 'space'.

What's already known?

the math (geometry, coriolispath, curved paths, etc)
the scientific formula (Hubble's law, laws of gravity)

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

It DOES matter.

1 day = 1 Earth's rotation.
1 year = 1 rotation around the sun.

When their clocks differ they must see different moves of the same object.

The traveling twin would see 1 rotation on its axis.
If the twin broter would see 1 rotation around the sun in one day, then G is not constant.
If it's one rotation for the traveling twin in 1 day, all the other objects will fall as if he was one day on Earth. The universe and the other twin on that Earth would look like one day was passing.

But the people on that object Earth are measuring one year, for them. They measure 165 rotations.

So this can not match, except when their are gravititional relativistic 'disformations'

.

???

The rotation of the Earth has nothing to do with the Twin Paradox. You are arguing from ignorance.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

yes that's truth. The twinparadox (and your math) was to explain SRT, not relativistic effects with the GRT.

But I used the twinparadox to explain relativistic effects in the gravitational fields and to explain the relation with G as a constant.

To address the fact that the relativistic effects in the gravitational field (like coriolispath versus straight line etc) are because of the constant G.


So, I will explain (again) what's new and what's already been said:

What's new here:

- not only C of the speed of light is constant for all observers.
- Also G is a constant in relativity given different clocks.-
That fact is enough to know that all observed fenomena of spacestretch
will have to do with relativity.
The object were a hypothetical twinbrother is moving away from
, is moving away from him or here too in the gravitational field.
- 'straightforward acceleation' is relative
- you must follow a coriolispath to follow a straight line given another frame of reference.
- the observer is the measurement of space and time
- the clock of the observer always ticks normal, so elsewhere something must change.
- the expanding universe is a relativistic spacestretch, given by our frame of reference.
- Wherever we are, the starclusters are redschifting ("Isotropie" Friedmann) is because of relativity.
- timedifference - motionmeasurement and spacedilation (distortion) are not only the fact in a uniform gravitational field. But also in the universe.
- the universe is an emergent object with mass. We can see the influence of this mass on far starclusters by their redshifting.
No Big Bangtheorie is needed to explain the expanding 'space'.

What's already known?

the math (geometry, coriolispath, curved paths, etc)
the scientific formula (Hubble's law, laws of gravity)

Could you please stop spamming this nonsense? Spamming is a breach of the member's agreement. You have got into trouble on another site for this activity. Anyway,repeating it will not make it true.