Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 11:18 PM
394 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,426 Year: 10,032/21,208 Month: 3,119/2,674 Week: 535/961 Day: 148/117 Hour: 1/18

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
13141516Next
Author Topic:   The Twins Paradox and the speed of light
Maartenn100
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 39
From: Belgium Antwerp
Joined: 08-13-2011


Message 166 of 230 (629039)
08-15-2011 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Maartenn100
08-15-2011 7:48 AM


Re: gravitational theory of relativity
Cavediver,

I want to clarify the twin paradox in gravitational relativity:

In gravitational relativity, your acceleration is always an acceleration to escape gravity more and more. Because you can not be not in a gravitational field while you are trying to get out these gravitational systems. Acceleration in gravitational relativity means: to escape gravity. (you must follow curved paths to follow straight lines)

So while doing this, the object where you are moving away from is accelerating to, but in the gravitational fields that you are successively leaving.
So the twin on earth begins to spin while you are accelerating outside Earth’s gravity.
So both your accelerations are equal.
And the twin on earth begins to wobble with a moon, while you escape this Earth-moonsystem. So your accelerations are equal.
The twin on Earth starts to travel around its star while turning in circles while you are leaving the solarsystem progressively.
Because, now you are not turning around the sun anymore, so that twin there is turning around itself, wobbling with a moon and going faster and faster around the sun till it reaches the velocity of 30 m/s and then the sun begin to moves, so the object Earth will move more strangely from the travelling twin point of view.
So while this traveling twin is moving away from an object (Earth, a spacestation or ...), this object is not only moving away from him relative to his 'frame of reference', but accelerates too, in the gravitational fields this traveling twin are leaving.

And that's why I think, that when they reunite: they will have the same age.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Maartenn100, posted 08-15-2011 7:48 AM Maartenn100 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by fearandloathing, posted 08-15-2011 1:19 PM Maartenn100 has responded

    
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 1527 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 167 of 230 (629065)
08-15-2011 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Maartenn100
08-15-2011 10:26 AM


Re: gravitational theory of relativity
Hi M,

In gravitational relativity, your acceleration is always an acceleration to escape gravity

You only need to accelerate to around 27,500 Mph to escape earths gravity, there is no need to accelerate past that.

So while doing this, the object where you are moving away from is accelerating too.

How is this true? The earth spins no faster, or orbits any faster because you left.

So the twin on earth begins to spin while you are accelerating outside Earth’s gravity.

No, his spin is the same as when you were on the launch pad. Earth is an inertial frame, while you accelerate you are in a non-inertial frame and when you stop accelerating at say 27,500 Mph you become an inertial frame also. You seem a bit confused about this?

Lets agree on this before we move on??


"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
— Hunter S. Thompson

Ad astra per aspera

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Maartenn100, posted 08-15-2011 10:26 AM Maartenn100 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Maartenn100, posted 08-15-2011 2:07 PM fearandloathing has acknowledged this reply

    
Maartenn100
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 39
From: Belgium Antwerp
Joined: 08-13-2011


Message 168 of 230 (629071)
08-15-2011 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by fearandloathing
08-15-2011 1:19 PM


Re: gravitational theory of relativity
Yes, maybe I’m confused about this, but what I mean is:

You say that Earth is already spinning around the sun.

How is this true? The earth spins no faster, or orbits any faster because you left.
.

No: movement is relative!!
There is no absolute movement. (Galileï, Einstein, etc…)

If you want to be consequent with relativity, such a statement can not be done. There is not "Earth is 'already' moving this way, or Earth is 'already' moving that way". in relativity.
That's thinking in terms of an absolute reference point for movement or not movement'. But there is no such absoluut point to refer to for movement when you are speaking in terms of relativity.

you as an observer, in reality, are always the reference point for movement, acceleration and weight.

Earth is is pushing you with 1g, when you are on Earth. That's relativity. (as I understand it). So you are already in a non-inertial frame of reference.
Earth's point of view is non-inertial.

So first you escape Earth’s 'pushing up' with 1 g:

To leave planet Earth an escape velocity of 11.2 km/s is required.
While you look back: you can measure two things: Earth is leaving you (relative point of view) and accelerates to 11.2 km/s and Earth is also spinning around more and more. These are relativistic observations.

You say:

when you stop accelerating at say 27,500 Mph you become an inertial frame also.

That’s truth, but you do not stop accelerating. (to leave the gravitional field of the sun).
To leave the gravitational field of the sun, a speed of 42.1 km/s is required to escape the Sun’s gravity.
Otherwise you are not talking about ‘gravitational relativity’ but about a uniform gravitational field, and then it’s like in the twinparadox.
You say that Earth is already spinning around the sun. No: movement is relative!!
There is no absolute movement in relativity. (Galileï, Einstein, etc…).
That's a statement from a certain reference point of view.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by fearandloathing, posted 08-15-2011 1:19 PM fearandloathing has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by cavediver, posted 08-15-2011 4:06 PM Maartenn100 has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 169 of 230 (629087)
08-15-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Maartenn100
08-15-2011 2:07 PM


Re: gravitational theory of relativity
ou as an observer, in reality, are always the reference point for movement, acceleration and weight.

No. Acceleration is not relative. Nor is rotation. Only velocity is relative. If you accelerate away from the Earth, you must experience a force. Although the Earth appears to be accelerating away from you, the Earth does not experience any force. This is the crucial break of symmetry that resolves the Twin's Paradox. The force that you experience is what takes you away from your free-fall path through space-time, and makes your space-time journey (i.e. time experienced) shorter.

Edited by cavediver, : Many typos cos I'm watching Falling Skies at the same time


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Maartenn100, posted 08-15-2011 2:07 PM Maartenn100 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Maartenn100, posted 08-15-2011 4:12 PM cavediver has responded

  
Maartenn100
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 39
From: Belgium Antwerp
Joined: 08-13-2011


Message 170 of 230 (629089)
08-15-2011 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by cavediver
08-15-2011 4:06 PM


Re: gravitational theory of relativity
yes, that's truth. You are right.
But it doesn't change the hypothesis, I think.
Acceleration can been measured.

Earth does experience a force: gravity.
The twin paradox only works (in my hipothesis) without calculating gravity in it.

The pseudo-acceleration of Earth is that the other twin is moving away 'relative' from the point of view of the travelling twin.

But Earth's rotation on its axis is an acceleration that is not been calculated in the twinparadox.

Nor is the Earth's rotation around the sun or the sun's rotation in the starsystem calculated in the twinparadox.

gravity gives us also a point of view in the universe:

Force on Earth from the Moon
+ Force on the Earth from the Sun.
+ Force on Earth from the black hole in the centre of the galaxy.
Force from moving galaxyclusters etc.

These are relativistic movements of Earth in the universe, depending on the position of the observer in the gravitational field. (you).

My idea is that the difference in time by the gravitational timedilation and the always normal ticking clock of the observer, makes the objects begins to move. (observation of movement by different clocks)

The observer is the measure of time and space. Not a pure mathematical 'coordinatesystem'.

But a zeropoint in the material world: the existing observer.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by cavediver, posted 08-15-2011 4:06 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by cavediver, posted 08-15-2011 4:40 PM Maartenn100 has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 171 of 230 (629095)
08-15-2011 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Maartenn100
08-15-2011 4:12 PM


Re: gravitational theory of relativity
But Earth's rotation on its axis is an acceleration that is not been calculated in the twinparadox.

Ok, we are talking about General Relativity, so we should not be talking about "gravity".

The Earth orbiting the Earth-Moon system, which is orbiting the Sun, which is orbiting the centre of the Galaxy (with its supermassive black hole), which is orbiting in the Local Group, which is, etc, etc... all of this is free-fall - it is the closest you can get to "not accelerating". This is following the straightest path through space-time.

The only real acceleration is that of the twin stood on the Earth - accelerated upwards by the surface of the Earth, and accelerated around the Earth by friction and air resistance. All the other Newtonian motion and acceleration (around the Sun, Galaxy, etc) is free-fall (i.e. not acceleration) in General Relativity. And this slight acceleration from the Earth's surface is tiny compared to the relativistic acceleration of the twin's relativistic space-craft.

As the twin accelerates away from Earth, she sees her twin accelerate away, but this is not real. The Earth-bound twin still only experiences the 1G upward acceleration, no matter how much acceleration her twin thinks she must be experiencing. And if the twin in the space-ship uses her telescope to observer her twin on the Earth, she will see the force gauge proving that she is experiencing no greater acceleration.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Maartenn100, posted 08-15-2011 4:12 PM Maartenn100 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Maartenn100, posted 08-15-2011 5:05 PM cavediver has responded

  
Maartenn100
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 39
From: Belgium Antwerp
Joined: 08-13-2011


Message 172 of 230 (629097)
08-15-2011 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by cavediver
08-15-2011 4:40 PM


Re: gravitational theory of relativity
Ok, we are talking about General Relativity, so we should not be talking about "gravity".

We are talking about the real world where gravity is everywhere.


The Earth orbiting the Earth-Moon system, which is orbiting the Sun, which is orbiting the centre of the Galaxy (with its supermassive black hole), which is orbiting in the Local Group, which is, etc, etc... all of this is free-fall - it is the closest you can get to "not accelerating". This is following the straightest path through space-time.

Yes it's freefall, but when you are in the vicinity of a heavy object, this object will begin to rotate (it's a bad ellips because of its own gravity) while you are moving away from it.

And this 'beginning to rotate' is an observation of movement of that body.

That rotation wasn't there before, given your reference point. That rotation of Earth is - in relativity - also no absolute movement, like you said earlier. It's relative, given a reference point (of an observer).

But the acceleration from 0 till the full rotation of the Earth is a measurable fact.

And pay attention: rotation is centripetal acceleration.

So: it's acceleration.

Gravitational timedilation makes us see these centripetal accelerations of these bodies.

Like when you are standing still in a gravitational field and your twinbrother is travelling near the speed of light. His clock will tick different.

In gravitational relativity (relativity in the gravitational field) your difference in time, by gaining hight (gravitational timedilation) has no lengthcontraction as result.

But you will see path's curved who weren't curved before. And you will see things that followed a straight line, now following a circular path.
And you will see that this whole object begins too in a centripetal acceleraton.

That's gravitational relativity.

That's a relative movement given a referencepoint in the gravitational field.

Do you understand what I mean?


The only real acceleration is that of the twin stood on the Earth - accelerated upwards by the surface of the Earth, and accelerated around the Earth by friction and air resistance.

The Earth was accelerating towards the twin with 1 g, that's right.
But the rotation of the earth is also a movement of an object (Earth) that is not absolute. That movement of that object is also relative!!!

It begins to move given a certain position, from an observer point of view (in the real world). So it accelerates given that referencepoint.
Do you understand?

When you think in terms of relativity, there is not an absolute movement.


All the other Newtonian motion and acceleration (around the Sun, Galaxy, etc) is free-fall (i.e. not acceleration) in General Relativity. And this slight acceleration from the Earth's surface is tiny compared to the relativistic acceleration of the twin's relativistic space-craft.

Yes, maybe that's truth.


As the twin accelerates away from Earth, she sees her twin accelerate away, but this is not real. The Earth-bound twin still only experiences the 1G upward acceleration, no matter how much acceleration her twin thinks she must be experiencing.

The rotation (centripetal acceleration) is real.


And if the twin in the space-ship uses her telescope to observer her twin on the Earth, she will see the force gauge proving that she is experiencing no greater acceleration.

In a centripetal way: yes.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : language issues (I'm dutch)

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by cavediver, posted 08-15-2011 4:40 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by cavediver, posted 08-15-2011 5:26 PM Maartenn100 has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 173 of 230 (629098)
08-15-2011 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Maartenn100
08-15-2011 5:05 PM


Re: gravitational theory of relativity
when you are in the vicinity of a heavy object, this object will begin to rotate (it's a bad ellips because of gravity) while you are moving away from it.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. Why should a non-rotating object begin to rotate?

And this 'beginning to rotate' is an observation of movement of that body.

That rotation wasn't there before, given your reference point....

...But you will see path's curved who weren't curved before. And you will see things that followed a straight line, now following a curved path.
And you will see this whole object begin too move.

Here, you seem to be talking about simple coriolis motion. There is nothing relativistic about this. It is simple Gallilean Relativity, moving from a rotating frame to a non-rotating frame. These motions are negligible compared to an acceleration to relativistic speed of an astronaut moving away from the Earth.

Again, I repeat, the Earth remains in free-fall, where-as the astronaut accelerates on her journey. This means her journey must be shorter in time than the same interval measure on Earth by her twin. This is inevitable and vert simple to understand once you understand space-time. No arguing about apparent rotations of frames can ever change this.

And the rotation of the Eath *is* absolute in General Relativity. Rotation creates frame-dragging, and this is not a "relative" effect that can be transformed away simply by moving to a co-rotating frame.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Maartenn100, posted 08-15-2011 5:05 PM Maartenn100 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Maartenn100, posted 08-15-2011 5:53 PM cavediver has responded

  
Maartenn100
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 39
From: Belgium Antwerp
Joined: 08-13-2011


Message 174 of 230 (629099)
08-15-2011 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by cavediver
08-15-2011 5:26 PM


Re: gravitational theory of relativity
I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. Why should a non-rotating object begin to rotate?

Euhm, are you from another world?
When you are leaving Earth and you are above Earth. Do you see the Earth rotation yes or no?
That's movement.

There is nothing relativistic about this. It is simple Gallilean Relativity

That seems a contradiction to me. "It's not relativistic at all, it's x - Relativity."

Yes it's about the coriolisline, but also about Earths ellipsoïde form.

But maybe you are right on the twins: gravity is negliblible.
I want to learn more about that!!!!

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by cavediver, posted 08-15-2011 5:26 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by fearandloathing, posted 08-15-2011 6:21 PM Maartenn100 has not yet responded
 Message 176 by NoNukes, posted 08-15-2011 10:43 PM Maartenn100 has not yet responded
 Message 177 by cavediver, posted 08-16-2011 8:15 AM Maartenn100 has responded

    
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 1527 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 175 of 230 (629101)
08-15-2011 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Maartenn100
08-15-2011 5:53 PM


Re: gravitational theory of relativity
Hi M,

Euhm, are you from another world?

No need to be a smartass.

When you are leaving Earth and you are above Earth. Do you see the Earth rotation yes or no?

Yes you do, but you see the same rate of rotation on earth....day/night.


"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
— Hunter S. Thompson

Ad astra per aspera

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Maartenn100, posted 08-15-2011 5:53 PM Maartenn100 has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9441
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 176 of 230 (629115)
08-15-2011 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Maartenn100
08-15-2011 5:53 PM


Re: gravitational theory of relativity
Euhm, are you from another world?
When you are leaving Earth and you are above Earth. Do you see the Earth rotation yes or no?
That's movement.

Perhaps you should investigate cavediver's credentials before deigning to lecture him on relativity.

We observe the earth to rotate while we are still standing on the ground. Surely you've noticed that that bright yellow/white thing that seems to rise towards the east and set towards the west? That rising/setting effect is due to earth's rotation. You seem to be making a mistake I've seen before. Namely that relativity is an optical illusion of some kind.

But maybe you are right on the twins: gravity is negliblible.
I want to learn more about that!!!!

The gravity/acceleration time dilation effects are negligible. Period. Outside of GPS were extremely high time accuracy is required, it is difficult to come up with any serious applications for the masses that apply general relativity.

Nobody even gives enough detail in twin paradox problems to even calculate the gravitational time dilation effects.

Let me suggest that you are going about learning in the wrong way. It's certainly reasonable to have your own ideas about stuff, but when you know as little about the topic as you do, surely it as at least equally likely that you are wrong as it is that the so called experts are wrong. A little less hubris might be in order. Check the color of the sky on your own world before asking whether Einstein was an idiot.

That seems a contradiction to me. "It's not relativistic at all, it's x - Relativity."

But it is not a contradiction. You simply aren't familiar with the language of physics. Non-relativistic simply means slow moving, low gravity physics such that Special and General Relativity are not needed for calculations. But the concepts of relative motion and inertial reference frames are from physics according to Newton and Galileo. Relative motion is not unique to SR/GR.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Maartenn100, posted 08-15-2011 5:53 PM Maartenn100 has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 177 of 230 (629164)
08-16-2011 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Maartenn100
08-15-2011 5:53 PM


Re: gravitational theory of relativity
I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. Why should a non-rotating object begin to rotate?

Euhm, are you from another world?
When you are leaving Earth and you are above Earth. Do you see the Earth rotation yes or no?

I said "non-rotating". The Earth is rotating. It does not matter what frame you or I are in, the Earth is rotating. While rotating with the Earth, we observe coriolis forces so we know that we are rotating.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Maartenn100, posted 08-15-2011 5:53 PM Maartenn100 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Maartenn100, posted 08-16-2011 11:15 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Maartenn100
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 39
From: Belgium Antwerp
Joined: 08-13-2011


Message 178 of 230 (629211)
08-16-2011 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by cavediver
08-16-2011 8:15 AM


Re: gravitational theory of relativity
No, these coriolisforces can be interpreted as forces in another 'timedimension' in the gravitational field.
It's a curved path in the sky, because time is different there then on Earth. (according to our point of view an our clocks on Earth).

Because when you follow this coriolispath in the sky, you think you go straight forward.

When Earth rotates "in reality", it doesn’t only do this around it’s axis, but also with a moon, a sun etc. And in that case ‘the corioliseffect’ would be very different.

A real ball in the sky turning around the sun, around itself and around a moon would have another corioliseffect, like we see it.

So all these movement are related to timedilation. Relative to our normal time on Earth.
So the corioliseffect is an effect in gravitational relativity because of the relative difference in time.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by cavediver, posted 08-16-2011 8:15 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by NoNukes, posted 08-21-2011 1:00 PM Maartenn100 has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9441
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 179 of 230 (629958)
08-21-2011 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Maartenn100
08-16-2011 11:15 AM


Re: gravitational theory of relativity
When Earth rotates "in reality", it doesn’t only do this around it’s axis, but also with a moon, a sun etc. And in that case ‘the corioliseffect’ would be very different.

The first indication that you are on the wrong track is when you claim that current physics is all wrong. The coriolis effect is perfectly well explained using Newtonian mechanics. If you think the coriolis effect would be 'very different' using your science, then your science is wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Maartenn100, posted 08-16-2011 11:15 AM Maartenn100 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Maartenn100, posted 08-21-2011 5:05 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Maartenn100
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 39
From: Belgium Antwerp
Joined: 08-13-2011


Message 180 of 230 (629975)
08-21-2011 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by NoNukes
08-21-2011 1:00 PM


Re: gravitational theory of relativity
The first indication that you are on the wrong track is when you claim that current physics is all wrong.

I don't claim that current physics is all wrong.

The coriolis effect is perfectly well explained using Newtonian mechanics.

I agree.
But, I think (I'm not sure) the coriolisforce can also been seen as curvature of movements as an illusion-effect in a non-uniform gravitational field like lengthcontraction is for velocity in a uniform gravitational field near the speed of light.

It's an effect as the result of a timedifference or different clocks for different observers: a straighforward path for them above us, is a curved path from your point of view on Earth and vice versa.

It's just my hypothesis, and I know that there is a hugh probabiliy that I'm wrong. And I do not claim that it's science. It's just a point of view, based on reasoning.

The curvature of the paths correlates with the difference between clocks.

Because I have reason to believe that when gravity is involved: motion is relative. Motion in gravity is related to your point of view in the gravitational field.

On the moon, the moon stands still, And Earth moves strange from there. (wobbles).

On the sun, you can see Earht move around it at 30 m/s.
You are standing still on the sun. (hypothetically speaking)

On mars, you stand still to. And from there Earth will move different too.

Relative motions, given your point of view in the gravitational field.

Cavediver answered that the corioliseffect is evidence for the rotation of the Earth in science.

My response was thatthat the corioliseffect would be different if Earth also was rotating with the moon (wobbles) and around the sun at 30m/s.

F.e. if a big object as Earth rotates around itself and at the same time rotates around the sun at 30m/s, the coriolisforce, seen on it would also be an effect of the rotation around the sun, the rotation in the solarsystem etc.

Take a rotating disc on a very big rotating disc, placed on an even bigger rotating disc. Would you see a corioliseffect on the disc on the top like on the disc below - according to your observer point of view on that disc?
No. Of course not.
You will see a different kind of effect, relative to your point of view on that rotating disc.

On Earth we only see the corioliseffect as an effect of the rotation of the Earth. Why?

Because our clock ticks normal, so movements above our head, in another time must curve.

Like when you are above the Earth: the earth must move, from your new point of view there, because of the difference in time. And the coriolisforce is a straight line, seen from above.

But when you are outside the solarsystem, you would see that rotationg Earth also move around the sun with a speed of 30 m/s. And from there, the coriolisforce on Earth would be seen different too. Because Earth will make spiral moves seen from that out-of-the-solarsystem-point of view.

You - as an observer of space and time - are the reference point to meausure movements in the gravitational field.

Hubble discovered that all starclusters are redshifting, from your point of view. Wherever you are, you will see everything redshifting at the bounderies of space and time-measurement form your point of view.

Why doesn' you see it between Earth and the moon? Or Earth and Mars?

Because it's an optical illusion.

That's why I think that gravity shows us relative movements, given a point of view. No real movements. And the redshift is not the evidence of a Big Bang. It's just an illusion, like lengthcontraction is for velocity. It's a relativity-effect of gravity and timedifference.
But it's my hypothesis. I do not claim it's science!! (science is better than my hypothesis).

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by NoNukes, posted 08-21-2011 1:00 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by NoNukes, posted 08-21-2011 7:25 PM Maartenn100 has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
13141516Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017