Einstein proven right, again

Stanford’s Gravity Probe B confirms two Einstein theories

After 52 years of conceiving, testing and waiting, marked by scientific advances and disappointments, one of Stanford’s and NASA’s longest-running projects comes to a close with a greater understanding of the universe.

Artist concept of Gravity Probe B orbiting the Earth to measure space-time, a four-dimensional description of the universe including height, width, length, and time. Image: NASA
 

Stanford and NASA researchers have confirmed two predictions of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, concluding one of the space agency’s longest-running projects.

Known as Gravity Probe B, the experiment used four ultra-precise gyroscopes housed in a satellite to measure two aspects of Einstein’s theory about gravity. The first is the geodetic effect, or the warping of space and time around a gravitational body. The second is frame-dragging, which is the amount a spinning object pulls space and time with it as it rotates.

After 52 years of conceiving, building, testing and waiting, the science satellite has determined both effects with unprecedented precision by pointing at a single star, IM Pegasi, while in a polar orbit around Earth. If gravity did not affect space and time, Gravity Probe B’s gyroscopes would point in the same direction forever while in orbit.  But in confirmation of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the gyroscopes experienced measurable, minute changes in the direction of their spin as they were pulled by Earth’s gravity.

The findings appear online in the journal Physical Review Letters.

“Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotated its axis and orbited the Sun, the honey around it would warp and swirl, and it’s the same with space and time,” said Francis Everitt, a Stanford physicist and principal investigator for Gravity Probe B.

A lasting legacy

“GP-B confirmed two of the most profound predictions of Einstein’s universe, having far-reaching implications across astrophysics research,” Everitt said. “Likewise, the decades of technological innovation behind the mission will have a lasting legacy on Earth and in space.”

Stanford has been NASA’s prime contractor for the mission and was responsible for the design and integration of the science instrument and for mission operations and data analysis.

Much of the technology needed to test Einstein’s theory had not yet been invented in 1959 when Leonard Schiff, head of Stanford’s physics department, and George E. Pugh of the Defense Department independently proposed to observe the precession of a gyroscope in an Earth-orbiting satellite with respect to a distant star. Toward that end, Schiff teamed up with Stanford colleagues William Fairbank and Robert Cannon and subsequently, in 1962, recruited Everitt.

NASA came on board in 1963 with the initial funding to develop a relativity gyroscope experiment.  Forty-one years later, the satellite was launched into orbit about 400 miles above Earth.

The project was soon beset by problems and disappointment when an unexpected wobble in the gyroscopes changed their orientation and interfered with the data. It took years for a team of scientists to sift through the muddy data and salvage the information they needed.

Despite the setback, Gravity Probe B’s decades of development led to groundbreaking technologies to control environmental disturbances on spacecraft, such as aerodynamic drag, magnetic fields and thermal variations. The mission’s star tracker and gyroscopes were the most precise ever designed and produced.

Played a role in developing GPS

Innovations enabled by GP-B have been used in the Global Positioning System, such as carrier-phase differential GPS, with its precision positioning that can allow an airplane to land unaided.  Additional GP-B technologies were applied to NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer mission, which determined the universe’s background radiation.  That measurement is the underpinning of the “big bang theory” and led to the Nobel Prize for NASA’s John Mather.

“The mission results will have a long-term impact on the work of theoretical physicists for years to come,” said Bill Danchi, senior astrophysicist and program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “Every future challenge to Einstein’s theories of general relativity will have to seek more precise measurements than the remarkable work GP-B accomplished.”

Over the course of its mission, GP-B advanced the frontiers of knowledge and provided a practical training ground for 100 doctoral students and 15 master’s degree candidates at universities across the United States. Over 350 undergraduates and more than four dozen high school students also worked on the project, alongside leading scientists and aerospace engineers from industry and government.

Sally Ride, the first American female astronaut in space, worked on GP-B while studying at Stanford.  Another was Nobel Laureate Eric Cornell, who also studied at Stanford.

NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., managed the Gravity Probe-B program for the agency. Lockheed Martin Corporation of Huntsville designed, integrated and tested the space vehicle and some of its major payload components.

===========================================================

Learn a lot more on testing Einstein’s theories here  h/t Dr. Leif Svalgaard via email

0 0 votes
Article Rating
313 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 4, 2011 3:22 pm

Simply amazing! At least someone is still doing real science.

DirkH
May 4, 2011 3:32 pm

So, spacetime behaves a litle bit like honey? Why don’t we just call it ether?

Theo Goodwin
May 4, 2011 3:38 pm

Wonderful post, Anthony. By the way, Aristotle’s vision of what he called the universe was very similar to the following:
‘“Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotated its axis and orbited the Sun, the honey around it would warp and swirl, and it’s the same with space and time,” said Francis Everitt, a Stanford physicist and principal investigator for Gravity Probe B.’
Oh, by the way, can someone recommend the ideal GPS device for hiking in and around the Appalachian Trail in Virginia?

May 4, 2011 3:45 pm

Einstein.
A dude.

Carl Chapman
May 4, 2011 3:58 pm

What would Einstein have said about “scientists” who hide their data even from Freedom Of Information laws? On consensus, he said: It doesn’t take 100 signatures to prove I’m wrong. It just takes one experimental fact.

Louis Savain
May 4, 2011 4:03 pm

There are only two nasty little problems to consider before you all get excited. First of all, time cannot change by definition and, therefore, nothing can move in spacetime. This is the reason that the great Sir Karl Popper called spacetime, “Einstein’s block universe in which nothing happens.” (source: Conjectures and Refutations).
Second, it is easy to prove that space (distance) is nothing but an illusion of perception). Surprise!
So these experiments did not prove that Einstein was right (he believed in the physical existence of a spacetime and of a time dimension!). They only proved that some of his equations were right. The interpretations of those equations, however, leave a lot to be desired.

PaulH
May 4, 2011 4:06 pm

It’s true. GPS satellites are effected by relativity, mainly the relativistic time slowing effect due to the speed of the satellites.
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
Cool stuff, even if the physics gets a bit deep. 🙂

RayG
May 4, 2011 4:15 pm

I joined the staff at Stanford in 1975. Shortly thereafter, I became aware of a program that was referred to in the bureaucratese of the day as Fairbanks, Everett and DeBra or GP-B. They were Bill Fairbanks from the Physics Department, Dan DeBra from Aero and Astro and Francis Everett from the Hansen High Energy Physics Lab. They soldiered on through periods where funding was not easy to raise and challenges as to the importance of the project were periodically raised. The many successes that came about because of their work is yet another testimony to the importance of funding basic research. Bill Fairbank died in the late 1980’s while on his daily run if I remember correctly but it is great that Francis Everett and Dan DeBra were able to see the fruition of decades of world-class work.
It is sad to see the amount of research monies that are being squandered on so much of what passes as science in the climate arena today.

wayne
May 4, 2011 4:23 pm

Those are some interesting articles Leif. The reference frame dragging was one of hardest concepts to grasp, for me anyway.
It sure seems like NASA could hire an artist that knew the basics of gravity for a story about… gravity. Neat picture but somewhat misleading if you take it too literally! Don’t look at that green-blue mesh and think that is what the real signature of Earth’s gravitational field would actually look like, well, kind of, but not correct.
At the center of the Earth there is no gravity field, zero. There should be an upside-down V-shaped dimple pointing upward in the middle from the surface inward on that grid at it’s deepest point. Maybe that article will cause some here that might not realize that fact to ‘open the books’, so to speak, and be a bit more enlightened.
Another thing I learned not too long ago is that if the Earth’s density was constant then that upside-down dimple of the gravitational field from the surface to the center of the Earth would be linear, a straight line, and not an inverse squared curve.

BarryW
May 4, 2011 4:27 pm

The project was soon beset by problems and disappointment when an unexpected wobble in the gyroscopes changed their orientation and interfered with the data. It took years for a team of scientists to sift through the muddy data and salvage the information they needed.

That bothers me.

Ray
May 4, 2011 4:30 pm

Darn! Einstein is right again. That sucks… we will never be able to travel faster than light… at least in this space-time continuum.

Douglas DC
May 4, 2011 4:35 pm

Gives me a bit of comfort as there still non grant grabbing ,AGW screaming ,
real scientists out there..

jorgekafkazar
May 4, 2011 4:39 pm

“The project was soon beset by problems and disappointment when an unexpected wobble in the gyroscopes changed their orientation and interfered with the data. It took years for a team of scientists to sift through the muddy data and salvage the information they needed…”
Did they use Mannian PCA? It’s very good for finding signals that you know are there.

xion III
May 4, 2011 4:43 pm

I’d like to know what was the unexpected wobble was caused by. If there was muddy data as a result, that took years to sort, what guarantee is there that cherry picking has not occurred?

SamG
May 4, 2011 4:47 pm

I don’t get why the warping of space time is depicted as occurring on a single plane. Is this for illustration purposes only? I would have thought a large body bends space time in every direction.

Juice
May 4, 2011 4:51 pm

I still don’t see how you can drag space. I can see gravity warping space (can I?) but I don’t get why spinning drags it. It’s as if we have the luminous aether again.

randy
May 4, 2011 4:51 pm

Awesome awesome science. And what an effort. Shame that AGW money is being pulled out of their funding pie.
I am a degreed physical scientist who will readily admit I have read Einstein thoroughly and proudly comprehend a little bit of it.

May 4, 2011 4:53 pm

From NASA: “According to calculations, the twisted space-time around Earth should cause the axes of the gyros to drift merely 0.041 arcseconds over a year. An arcsecond is 1/3600th of a degree. To measure this angle reasonably well, GP-B needed a fantastic precision of 0.0005 arcseconds. It’s like measuring the thickness of a sheet of paper held edge-on 100 miles away.
Pulling off the experiment was an exceptional challenge. But after a year of data-taking and nearly five years of analysis, the GP-B scientists appear to have done it.
“We measured a geodetic precession of 6.600 plus or minus 0.017 arcseconds and a frame dragging effect of 0.039 plus or minus 0.007 arcseconds,” says Everitt.”
I am glad they were able to sift through the “problems and disappointment when an unexpected wobble in the gyroscopes changed their orientation and interfered with the data.” Good thing the scientists were able to take…”years to sift through the muddy data and salvage the information they needed.”

slow to follow
May 4, 2011 4:57 pm

“Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotated its axis and orbited the Sun, the honey around it would warp and swirl, and it’s the same with space and time,”
Does anybody have a reference that discusses this “honey swirling” effect for the atmosphere? TIA

May 4, 2011 5:10 pm

More from NASA: “Time and space, according to Einstein’s theories of relativity, are woven together, forming a four-dimensional fabric called “space-time.” The mass of Earth dimples this fabric, much like a heavy person sitting in the middle of a trampoline. Gravity, says Einstein, is simply the motion of objects following the curvaceous lines of the dimple.”
That is a handy image, using gravity to illustrate…gravity. 😀

Jimbo
May 4, 2011 5:14 pm

Should Warmists pay any heed to Einstein’s sayings?

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.”
“To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”
Einstein

Theo Goodwin
May 4, 2011 5:15 pm

RayG says:
May 4, 2011 at 4:15 pm
“They soldiered on through periods where funding was not easy to raise and challenges as to the importance of the project were periodically raised.”
Old School Scientists. The science was what motivated them. No doubt they made significant personal sacrifices to practice their science. God Bless them and all like them.

Theo Goodwin
May 4, 2011 5:22 pm

xion III says:
May 4, 2011 at 4:43 pm
“I’d like to know what was the unexpected wobble was caused by. If there was muddy data as a result, that took years to sort, what guarantee is there that cherry picking has not occurred?”
There is no guarantee. However, the huge difference between this case and that of Climategaters is that these physicists had physical hypotheses (a huge set of them) that actually specify the data. Climategaters have no physical hypotheses at all, except the few they borrowed from poor old Arrhenius. Michael Mann has never created a physical hypothesis. All he has done is organize proxy data. That kind of fundamental science has to be done, but the very fact that Mann can be tenured and honored as a scientist-without-portfolio drives me up the wall.

Greg Cavanagh
May 4, 2011 5:28 pm

The project was soon beset by problems and disappointment when an unexpected wobble in the gyroscopes changed their orientation and interfered with the data.
The mission’s star tracker and gyroscopes were the most precise ever designed and produced.
I’m having difficulty reconciling these two statements.

1DandyTroll
May 4, 2011 5:49 pm

To warp space and time or to perceive space and time getting “warped”. O_0

CRS, Dr.P.H.
May 4, 2011 5:55 pm

Now, THAT’S how NASA should spend precious money (vs. Gavin’s budget?)!!
Nice stuff, thanks for posting!
On an Einstein tangent, Fermilab’s director, Dr. Pier Oddone, was just elected to the National Academy of Sciences, joining past luminaries including Einstein. This is an incredible honor and well deserved.
Pier’s an excellent chap and runs a great ship at Fermilab, wish him the best!
http://fnal.gov/pub/today/

Darren Parker
May 4, 2011 6:10 pm

This is old news to anyone taht has studied Eastern Mysticism. Anyone interested should research ‘Akasa’ (sometimes called Akasha)

Dave Worley
May 4, 2011 6:17 pm

Good to know the old station wagon has finally caught up to an early 20th century scientist.
Can we put the pedal to the metal and get a base on the moon now, or does Obama have to stop and take a leak?

Allen63
May 4, 2011 6:49 pm

Its true. The AGW debacle has made me “skeptical” of certain types of scientific claims.
There were, perhaps honest, “errors” made by those professing AGW — simply because they’re human and humans tend to see what they expect to see. Still, the fallacies would have been easy to correct by a qualified, objective member of the team. That they were not, is an indictment of “Big Government Funded Science” — and the desire to keep the funds coming.
Now, I am hesitant to “believe” the above results (which are the result of a big government funded science project) without seeing the data in detail and, maybe, doing some of the math myself.
Sad it has come to this, but true. Fool me once, as they say.

RandomReal[]
May 4, 2011 7:19 pm

Congrats to Dr Everitt and his team. To overcome the technical and engineering challenges is quite an achievement. With regard to the unexpected wobble, this is the kind of problem that earth-bound experimenters face, but the difference is that Everitt et al. could not fly up there and fix things. To get usable data, I assume that they first had to figure out the source(s) of the wobbles, and then, carefully correct for them. I am sure the paper will describe these things in detail. You can build the most sophisticated equipment, but then you put it on a devise that does a controlled explosion to shoot it into space (Ouch!). I am amazed that anything to works properly.
There are some other interesting tests of GR. The Harvard Physics department has a video by Robert Pound called “Weighing Photons — The Story of an Experiment” from 1991.
http://www.physics.harvard.edu/about/video.html
You will find it on the main page with other interesting lectures (Sydney Coleman’s “Quantum mechanics in your face” is especially enjoyable)
— I love the internet!
Kudos to the physics community for putting cutting edge science from colloquia/seminars/meetings on the web. I only wish that other disciplines and departments follow suit.

May 4, 2011 7:28 pm

Louis Savain says:
May 4, 2011 at 4:03 pm
There are only two nasty little problems to consider before you all get excited. […] They only proved that some of his equations were right. The interpretations of those equations, however, leave a lot to be desired.
I also noted in my email, that this was bound to stir up some General Relativity Deniers. BTW, General relativity is described by just one equation.

R. Gates
May 4, 2011 7:51 pm

Interestingly, these results are still valid even if time actually is NOT a fourth dimension as it is so often thought of. This was a concept that Einstein actually embraced, as he saw time really as nothing more than the ordering of events, but the popular view of time as a actual fourth dimension has proven hard to shake. This article makes an excellent overview of this:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html
Neither the geodetic effect nor frame dragging actually require time as an actual dimension as they are effects on the 3D fabric of space caused by gravitational fields.

Louis Savain
May 4, 2011 7:52 pm

Svalgaard wrote:
I also noted in my email, that this was bound to stir up some General Relativity Deniers. BTW, General relativity is described by just one equation.
Leif, are you denying that time cannot change by definition and that, as a result, there can be no motion in spacetime? If so, let us see your explanation of how time can change. On second thought, don’t bother. I know you have no explanation.
In the meantime, let me explain to the rest of us why time cannot change. A change in position implies a velocity (rate of change) that is expressed as v = dx/dt. A change in time also implies a rate of change which is given as dt/dt, which is, of course, nonsense.
It is that simple, folks. This is the reason that there can be no time dimension, Einstein and a billion relativists claim otherwise notwithstanding. But don’t take my word for it. And don’t take the relativist’s word either. Do your own thinking. Figure it out on your own.

May 4, 2011 8:00 pm

In a way. I expect a comment from Lubos

Jenn Oates
May 4, 2011 8:34 pm

I love science…
/sighs happily
(even when it’s being done at Stanford, booooo)

etudiant
May 4, 2011 8:39 pm

Kudos to the researchers who soldiered on through the decades that it took to build, launch and then evaluate this mission.
It is too bad that the error levels of the results are so wide. They appear to encompass the expected values, so the results are consistent with expectations.
Ideally the results would have shown a discrepancy, something to spur new efforts to improve our understanding.

rbateman
May 4, 2011 8:52 pm

Is that the ‘missing mass’? The gravity of a galaxy wrapping up space around it as it spins?
Now that brings up another question:
If the spin of the Galaxy is wrapping up space around it and dragging it, where does the energy to continue spinning come from (resisting the friction)?
I want to say Dark Energy keeps the Galaxies from slowing down, but now I’m in over my head in honey.

AusieDan
May 4, 2011 8:59 pm

So it seems that I too am of a skeptical disposition.
This was a hughly expensive experiment, consuming imense amounts of scarse resources.
Just what did it demonstrate?
Does it show anything more than moving a body through a gravitational field will influence the movement of that body?
Warped time? Warped space?
Just what is time made of?
What are the constitutes of space?
Pretty artifacts of complex equations.
Anything more?

AusieDan
May 4, 2011 9:03 pm

Just what is time made of?
You cannot warp nothing.
So time must have a physical constitution.
Or Einstein was still mired in 19th century mysticism.
Do you want some “ether” with your fries?
I’ll take mine plain, thank you very much.

May 4, 2011 9:10 pm

“Darn! Einstein is right again. That sucks… we will never be able to travel faster than light… at least in this space-time continuum.”
That only applies to the observer. According to Einstein, a spaceship with a constant 1 G acceleration can travel to the edge of the visible universe. 13 billion light years and the occupants of the space ship will only age about 60 years.
From the point of view of the folks onboard the spaceship, they have travelled much faster than light. Much. However, the folks back on earth will have aged a little bit more than 13 billion years during this time, so it will appear to them that you never exceeded the speed of light.
So, except for the problem of generating enough energy to maintain 1 G acceleration, human beings have the ability to visit anywhere in the universe within 1 lifetime.

May 4, 2011 9:23 pm

Louis Savain says:
May 4, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Leif, are you denying that time cannot change by definition and that, as a result, there can be no motion in spacetime?
Yes, I’m a time-cannot-change denier. This experiment was called Gravity Probe B, because there was a Gravity Probe A long ago. In GP-A one atomic clock was sent into space while two clocks remained on Earth. Relativity predicts that the one that was sent aloft would run slower than the two on the ground, and sure enough it did, and by just the amount predicted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_A
End of discussion.

May 4, 2011 9:26 pm

Louis Savain;
In the meantime, let me explain to the rest of us why time cannot change.>>>
Is there some genetic mutation out there that compels people to spew nonsense spattered with some randomly chosen math symbols related to nothing at all, just dribbled in a row in the paragraph? Is there some specific gene that makes people spew such drivel despite experimental evidence confirming the theory? One of the very first experiments NASA did in this regard was to put highly accurate atomic clocks in orbit in order to compare how they travelled in time compared to identical clocks on earth surface. The difference confirmed Einstein. Sorry Louis, but that was decades ago, and there have been more experiments since then, and they keep on confirming Einstein. Either he got it right or there have been an awfull lot of experiments that just coincidentally produced results matching Einstein’s equations to a rediculous number of decimal places. What pleasure or value you get out of announcing that dt/dt disproves him is beyond me.

May 4, 2011 9:27 pm

So, the flow of time depends on the presence or absence of a large mass in vicinity.
Why this is never taken into account when they talk about red shift?

May 4, 2011 9:38 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 4, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Relativity predicts that the one that was sent aloft would run slower than the two on the ground
Grrr, faster, of course. High gravity slows down time.

astonerii
May 4, 2011 9:42 pm

““Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotated its axis and orbited the Sun, the honey around it would warp and swirl, and it’s the same with space and time,” said Francis Everitt, a Stanford physicist and principal investigator for Gravity Probe B.”
Or…
Stick with me here, this is going to be complicated.
Imagine the Earth as if it were surrounded by a gaseous cloud and a thin layer of liquid.
Well, I guess his description is way better than mine, it has fantasy going for it.
So, exactly how does this disprove the idea that space is really a medium through which everything moves?

May 4, 2011 9:42 pm

Alexander Feht says:
May 4, 2011 at 9:27 pm
So, the flow of time depends on the presence or absence of a large mass in vicinity.
Why this is never taken into account when they talk about red shift?

It is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
The cosmological red shift is something else, completely, and have nothing to do with time slowing, but with space expanding. Note that the galaxies are almost stationary in space and do not move away from us or each other. Space is just getting bigger.

Larry in Texas
May 4, 2011 9:49 pm

My God, R. Gates actually said something that made sense to me, and that I agreed with. And he actually cited a piece that seemed a genuine observation! Has the world gone mad? /sarc and laughter

May 4, 2011 9:49 pm

Anthony Watts says:
May 4, 2011 at 9:44 pm
So Leif, if gravity continues to rise….will time stop?
Yes, if you are falling into a black hole we would observe that your time [e.g. as shown on a clock dial carried with you and visible to us] will slow to a crawl and eventually stop. You, on the other hand, would not detect anything unusual, except that you’ll eventually be shredded to long skinny threads.
Sounds like the next crisis. Eat less, lose mass, save time. 😉

May 4, 2011 9:52 pm

Anthony Watts says:
May 4, 2011 at 9:44 pm
So Leif, if gravity continues to rise….will time stop?
Sounds like the next crisis. Eat less, lose mass, save time. 😉

Skinny threads are what you’ll become…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Curt
May 4, 2011 10:04 pm

It was my privilege to study under Robert Cannon and Dan DeBra many years ago. Both their knowledge and their passion inspired me.
I wonder what Lubos Motl thinks of this announcement. He was very dubious about the project not long ago…
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/tamino-5-sigma-and-frame-dragging.html

Lew Skannen
May 4, 2011 10:08 pm

I knew it!
I knew that that planet was hovering just metres above a giant solar spiderweb!
And people mocked me….
🙁

Louis Savain
May 4, 2011 10:18 pm

I asked:
Leif, are you denying that time cannot change by definition and that, as a result, there can be no motion in spacetime?
Leif Svalgaard replied:
Yes, I’m a time-cannot-change denier. This experiment was called Gravity Probe B, because there was a Gravity Probe A long ago. In GP-A one atomic clock was sent into space while two clocks remained on Earth. Relativity predicts that the one that was sent aloft would run slower than the two on the ground, and sure enough it did, and by just the amount predicted.
Wow. That’s a complete non-answer. Do you realize that you are confusing the observed motion of a ticking clock with changing time? Clocks do not measure changing time. They only measure static and abstract temporal intervals. Amazingly, even a few well-known relativists agree with me that time cannot change. Here is what professor Robert Geroch wrote about the possibility of motion/change in spacetime:

There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. […] In particular, one does not think of particles as “moving through” space-time, or as “following along” their world-lines. Rather, particles are just “in” space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle.

Source: Relativity from A to B by Dr. Robert Geroch, U. of Chicago
Of course, Geroch would never publicly extrapolate the consequences of what he wrote in his book about nothing changing in spacetime. Why? Because that would bring a quick end to his career, thanks to people like you. Luckily, I have no such fear. Leif, it’s obvious that you are a truth denier. But why am I not surprised?
End of discussion.
I don’t think so. The discussion has not even begun. Repeat the following 1000 times a day until it sinks in:
Time cannot change by definition.
Nothing can move in spacetime

Louis Savain
May 4, 2011 10:30 pm

davidmhoffer wrote:
What pleasure or value you get out of announcing that dt/dt disproves him is beyond me.
dt/dt proves via extremely simple logic (which apparently went over your head) that, contrary to the claims of Albert Einstein’s (and many others), there is no such thing as a time dimension. That is all. This is true whether or not you or Svalgaard or anybody else likes it. I must admit that I do get a sense of satisfaction from rubbing the scientific community’s nose in their own excrement. I can’t help it. It’s the rebel in me.
PS. I do note that Svalgaard studiously avoids the argument I posed. Which is to be expected.

RayG
May 4, 2011 10:41 pm

The discussion of Monbiot’s essay at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc is also worth reading.
judithcurry.com/2011/05/04/monbiot-on-environmental-fixes/#more-3152

Keith Minto
May 4, 2011 10:49 pm

wayne says:
May 4, 2011 at 4:23 pm
At the center of the Earth there is no gravity field, zero.

Assuming equal mass in all directions, at the centre of the earth, gravitational force would be equal in every direction, and give the impression of zero gravity. Two masses (the imaginary observer and the earth) must produce a force, even if those forces cancel.

rbateman
May 4, 2011 10:52 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 4, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Time must run very slowly in a black hole, perhaps barely existing, unless there is some type of a limit to how strong gravity can become.

May 4, 2011 11:43 pm

It’s been an old-fashioned, happy project. But the accuracy of the frame dragging has been an immense disappointment.
With the nearly 20-percent error of the final figure, they would barely prove, at the 5-sigma confidence level, that the effect was nonzero and had the right sign…
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/05/gravity-probe-b-final-results-frame.html
At any rate, one can’t be certain about the power of new experimental gadgets before they’re really tried.

a jones
May 4, 2011 11:56 pm

Yes Anthony, I assure you Lief is entirely correct.
The classical view, for which read Einstein, is that at the speed of light mass and gravity become infinite and time ceases to exist in that it does not pass. This creates certain theoretical paradoxes.
Fortunately light does not travel at the speed of light, its group velocity, its actual speed, is always less than its phase velocity, its theoretical speed.
This relationship between mass and speed is elegantly demonstrated in the cathode ray tube where electrons are accelerated at quite low voltages to speeds at which the increased energy of the electrons starts to show up as increased mass instead of increased speed. It is actually very difficult to accelerate an electron beyond about half the speed of light, it just gets massier instead of going faster.
Much the same limitations in a different form presumably occur close to the event horizons of black holes.
Kindest Regards

May 4, 2011 11:58 pm

Louis Savain says:
May 4, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Time cannot change by definition.
Time is what a clock shows. A clock can be oscillations of an atom: “a second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom”
David said it well:
davidmhoffer says:
May 4, 2011 at 9:26 pm
“Is there some genetic mutation out there that compels people to spew nonsense”
Keith Minto says:
May 4, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Two masses (the imaginary observer and the earth) must produce a force, even if those forces cancel.
Already Newton knew that the mass outside a spherical shell does not produce a gravitational field, only the mass within the sphere. At the center of the Earth, the radius [hence volume and mass] of that sphere is zero, hence no gravity.
rbateman says:
May 4, 2011 at 10:52 pm
Time must run very slowly in a black hole, perhaps barely existing, unless there is some type of a limit to how strong gravity can become.
There is probably a [quantum theoretical] limit, but time inside the event horizon does not run slowly for an observer there. It is the observer outside the horizon that sees the infalling clock slow down [as also shown by the light emitted getting redder and redder and dimmer and dimmer]

TerryS
May 5, 2011 12:06 am

When will these physicists learn? They wasted decades of time and money designing. building and then sending a satellite into orbit just for an experiment. Don’t they know that that isn’t how you do science these days? How could you ever believe the results of an experiment like this? All they had to do was build a computer model and that’s all the proof they would have needed.

May 5, 2011 12:09 am

TerryS says:
May 5, 2011 at 12:06 am
All they had to do was build a computer model and that’s all the proof they would have needed.
You seem to have an over-inflated trust in computer models.

Louis Savain
May 5, 2011 12:30 am

I wrote:
Time cannot change by definition
Leif Svalgaard replied:
Time is what a clock shows. A clock can be oscillations of an atom: “a second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom”
Complete waste of time. 🙂 See ya around.

Espen
May 5, 2011 12:46 am

Leif Svalgaard writes: At the center of the Earth, the radius [hence volume and mass] of that sphere is zero, hence no gravity.
Any kid who knows his Don Rosa, knows that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Universal_Solvent_(comics)
😉

TerryS
May 5, 2011 12:49 am

Re: Leif
*sigh* forgot the /sarc

Rabe
May 5, 2011 12:52 am

Louis Savain,
time changes not with dt/dt but with dt/dx.

Myrrh
May 5, 2011 1:01 am

As with a couple of others here, I still don’t understand what this warping of space time actually is, how does the Earth warp the space time around it as per the diagram since it must be doing so in all directions, unless this is all based on an idea of a flat universe? The honey the Earth is spinning in must be a something, an ether or whatever, which is being pulled around a spinning Earth ‘equally’ in a zero warp field, so there’s no warping only Earth spinning in something. And gravity then what? Does a spinning object attract or repel stuff around it?
In other words, can someone explain this in 3D before invoking a fourth dimension.

Jim Masterson
May 5, 2011 1:23 am

>>
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 4, 2011 at 11:58 pm
Already Newton knew that the mass outside a spherical shell does not produce a gravitational field, only the mass within the sphere. At the center of the Earth, the radius [hence volume and mass] of that sphere is zero, hence no gravity.
<<
Your statement is somewhat confusing (mine may be no better). A uniform sphere (constant density throughout) creates a normal gravity field outside (as if the mass was concentrated at its center-of-mass). However, everywhere inside the sphere, the gravitational force would be zero. As you (mathematically) move towards the center of the Earth, the outside mass sphere contributes no gravity force. The inside sphere is smaller and smaller and represents less and less enclosed mass.
This works for any inverse square law. The electric charge also follows the inverse square law and is why Von de Graaff generators work. The electric potential inside a metallic sphere is zero or at ground level. You can discharge a small potential charge to the inside of the metallic sphere, even though the total spherical charge may be several orders of magnitude larger.
It’s also why a Dyson sphere enclosing a star can’t orbit that star –there’s no inside gravity field for the star’s gravity to act on.
It’s harder to show mathematically, but a ring can’t orbit around a star either (as in Ringworld).
Jim

Malaga View
May 5, 2011 1:43 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 4, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Relativity predicts that the one that was sent aloft would run slower than the two on the ground
Grrr, faster, of course. High gravity slows down time.

Everything is relative….
A “brick” falls through the air faster than a “brick” sinks in water…
=> Gravity is a conceptual constant.
=> Gravity measurements are not absolute.
A “clock” ticks faster in space than a “clock” ticks on earth…
=> Time is a conceptual constant
=> Time measurements are not absolute.

the gyroscopes experienced measurable, minute changes in the direction of their spin as they were pulled by Earth’s gravity.

Well there is a surprise… opens eyes… rolls eyes.

Jim Masterson
May 5, 2011 2:12 am

>>
Louis Savain says:
May 4, 2011 at 10:30 pm
dt/dt proves via extremely simple logic (which apparently went over your head) that, contrary to the claims of Albert Einstein’s (and many others), there is no such thing as a time dimension. That is all. This is true whether or not you or Svalgaard or anybody else likes it. I must admit that I do get a sense of satisfaction from rubbing the scientific community’s nose in their own excrement. I can’t help it. It’s the rebel in me.
PS. I do note that Svalgaard studiously avoids the argument I posed. Which is to be expected.
<<
Since you think that Relativity is incorrect, then you must believe that our physics is only valid for the Earth. If we were to travel to another, distant galaxy, then their physics would be different?
Relativity is an old idea. It dates back to Galileo. It’s the idea that our physics is invariant with respect to reference frame. Newton’s three laws of motion are invariant under Newtonian-Galilean Relativity. Special Relativity makes Maxwell’s equations invariant with respect to inertial frames. General Relativity includes Special Relativity and makes Newton’s gravitation law invariant. General Relativity also includes both accelerating and non-accelerating frames of reference (among other things).
Most people who disagree with Einstein’s Relativity actually agree with the principles of Relativity. They just don’t like how the math works out.
Jim

May 5, 2011 2:19 am

Young Albert was a very smart guy.

wayne
May 5, 2011 2:23 am

Keith Minto says:
May 4, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Assuming equal mass in all directions, at the centre of the earth, gravitational force would be equal in every direction, and give the impression of zero gravity. Two masses (the imaginary observer and the earth) must produce a force, even if those forces cancel.

There you go, that’s a more proper definition. That has often made me wonder, since all matter resists compression, just where would the highest density inside the Earth occur? The center? Or at some distance toward the surface? Ahhh.. gravity, real strange effects sometimes.

Louis Savain
May 5, 2011 2:57 am

Rabe says:
Louis Savain,
time changes not with dt/dt but with dt/dx.

Wow. I’ve never heard this one before. In physics, the only accepted evolution parameter is t. Sorry. Besides, if moving along the time dimension were possible, it would not require motion in any of the spatial dimensions.
But then again, you knew this. So why even write a comment?

wayne
May 5, 2011 2:57 am

Here’s another strange gravitational effect if curious:
Take a spacecraft approaching the asteroid belt, density evenly spread, and approaching in it’s plane. As you get nearer you would at first think you would be accelerating toward the approaching asteroids in front as they become visible.
Not so, when inside the orbit of the asteroid belt you would not feel it’s gravity at all. But, the minute you cross the belt’s boundary, if you make it across :-), you would immediately undergo a deceleration from the entire asteroid belt’s mass with its center of attraction near the sun. This deceleration would of course decrease at the inverse of the square of the distance, not from the nearby asteroids, but from the center of attraction near the sun.
That’s also a bit anti-intuitive. (and probably no, surely all of the physicists investigating the Pioneer’s anomaly took this strange effect into account (or did they? ☺))

Louis Savain
May 5, 2011 3:01 am

Myrrh wrote:
In other words, can someone explain this in 3D before invoking a fourth dimension.
You’re wasting your time expecting an explanation that makes any sense from the relativist community. There are no people in physics more clueless than relativists. They understand absolutely nothing. They only confuse the hell out of everybody. They certainly have no clue as to why things fall. All that spacetime curvature nonsense is just that, nonsense.

Myrrh
May 5, 2011 3:11 am

Louis Savin – I’m not the only one here wondering about it. Are you saying we’re not going to get an explanation for this very simple basic question?

wayne Job
May 5, 2011 3:19 am

Einstein may have an equation that or two that work but they tell us nothing and prove nothing. Lorentz.s relativity has a different and easily understood concept and the Lorentz transformation are a law of nature using matter mechanics. They will lead to physics beyond relativity. This experiment with perfect balls is easily explained but with a different conclusion. When science or engineering require ever more complications and parts, often imaginary, to prove their theory they are marching in the wrong direction. The universe and indeed nature tends to the minimum for perfection.

View from the Solent
May 5, 2011 3:49 am

“Stanford’s Gravity Probe B confirms two Einstein theories”
Oh dear. You can’t prove a scientific theory. What you can do is verify predictions based on that theory. Which is what the article states in the second para – “Stanford and NASA researchers have confirmed two predictions….”
New sub-editor needed .

Graeme
May 5, 2011 4:10 am

Beautiful. I first became interested in science around 8 years of age, and this is precisely the sort of science that fascinated me back then. This is real science, and the climate science community could learn much from it if they were willing too do so.
I.e. Theory vs Empirical tests. Not Theory tested via theoretical computer models

Geoffrey Donald Broadbent
May 5, 2011 4:12 am

When I first heard of the concept and required technology for this experiment I was stunned by their audacity-fantastic! Last year another of Einstein’s predictions- that while the speed of light was constant that at very short wavelengths- 10 to the -23 and -24 power cms there would be variations. Last year the radiation ? from implosion of an early galaxy arrived at Earth after about 13 billion years of travel. The two different wavelengths arrived 11 minutes apart as Einstein predicted. It was described in “Sky and Telescope” magazine. It leaves for dead all the the kindergarden climate science. I read Einstein mathematics for fun and my IQ measured in school sixty years ago was in his ballpark but I just cannot grasp how he imagined the concepts he did let alone convert them to exacting mathematics. To hurl a bunch of super gyroscopes to swirl through gravity waves while focussing on a distant star-how wonderful that real scientists of genius quality still exist. In spellbound admiration. Geoff Broadbent

wayne
May 5, 2011 4:26 am

Jim Masterson, sorry, noticed I basically doubled your comment earlier. Oops. Well, at least it’s a bit different. ☺

May 5, 2011 5:02 am

Was Einstein the true author of ‘Einstein’ theories?
‘The Annus Mirabilis papers are four articles pertaining to the photoelectric effect (which gave rise to quantum theory), Brownian motion, the special theory of relativity, and E = mc2, that Albert Einstein published in the Annalen der Physik scientific journal in 1905. These four works contributed substantially to the foundation of modern physics and changed views on space, time, and matter.’
His four most important papers were submitted for publishing on March 18 (he was only 26 two days earlier), May 11, June 30 and September 27 in year 1905.
It can be assumed that he worked on papers for at least some months earlier.
Incredible success for 24-5 year old; 4 years earlier at ETH Zurich ‘Although the final grades for Einstein fell below the 5 point average that was necessary to pass, Einstein’s 4.9 was rounded up to a 5, so he squeaked by’.
Einstein’s future wife, Mileva Marić (she was 4 years his senior), also enrolled at the Polytechnic that same year, the only woman among the six students in the mathematics and physics section of the teaching diploma course. Over the next few years, Einstein and Maric friendship developed into romance, and they read books together on extra-curricular physics in which Einstein was taking an increasing interest..
Mileva was deeply in love with Einstein, not very attractive and lame, in late January 1902 she gave birth to his illegitimate daughter called Lieserl. Albert and Mileva were married exactly one year later at Bern City Hall on January 6, 1903. She was just 28 Einstein was almost 24.
1905 was Einstein’s annus mirabilis, the miracle year. Albert published his four scientific papers that each marked an important breakthrough.
Mileva told a Serbian friend, “we finished some important work that will make my husband world famous.”
They were divorced in 1919, Albert was world-famous figure, but he never again produced physics on a par with the work of 1905.
How come this 24 year old genius that revolutionised physics, for five decades to follow produced very little in comparison?
Also Einstein agreed to sign over to Maric any future Nobel Prize money as part of the divorce settlement! Not money or property now, but ‘any future Nobel Prize money’, the result of the scientific achievements! Odd that.
Maric never made any claims, but content of her letter is telling:
’ But what can be done, one person gets the pearl and the other just gets the shell’.

Uber
May 5, 2011 5:11 am

2 words : “optical gyro”

Tom in Florida
May 5, 2011 5:41 am

Louis Savain says: (May 5, 2011 at 12:30 am)
I clicked on your link “Complete waste of time”
You are correct, it was a complete waste of my time.

Dan
May 5, 2011 6:41 am

ferd berple:
I have been accellerated for almost exactly 60 years at 1g now.
As my wife would put it, I am unfortunately still here and not at all near the end of the universe .
I will admit that my mass has increased, but not by relativistic amounts. The wife would argue that point, though.
Einstein was wrong on so many levels, it seems.

mkelly
May 5, 2011 6:45 am

Ray says:
May 4, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Darn! Einstein is right again. That sucks… we will never be able to travel faster than light… at least in this space-time continuum.
Nothing can travel faster than light. So Ray if you turn into nothing you can travel faster than light. Or turn into heat as heat travelled with the edge of the universe as it expanded faster than light. Take your pick.

May 5, 2011 6:58 am

Jim Masterson says:
May 5, 2011 at 1:23 am
Your statement is somewhat confusing (mine may be no better). A uniform sphere (constant density throughout) creates a normal gravity field outside (as if the mass was concentrated at its center-of-mass). However, everywhere inside the sphere, the gravitational force would be zero.
You are correct that yours is no better. The density does not have to be constant, just only depending on distance from the center. And the field is not zero everywhere inside the sphere. If you substitute ‘spherical shell’ for ‘sphere’ your statement becomes correct.
On a more interesting note, one can ask where within the Earth gravity is the strongest? If you drill into the Earth and descent towards the center, gravity actually increases at first. [left to the student to explain why].
Tom in Florida says:
May 5, 2011 at 5:41 am
I clicked on your link [Louis Savain:] “Complete waste of time”
You are correct, it was a complete waste of my time.

Except it was an illuminating study of human stupidity

Richard S Courtney
May 5, 2011 7:02 am

Louis Savain:
I have read all your posts and – with the exception of your offensive remarks at May 5, 2011 at 3:01 am – I admit that I have failed to make sense of any of them. So, I present my own understanding in hope that you will explain to me where you think it is wrong. My undertanding is as follows.
1.
Relativistic Theory says everything exists in the space-time continuum.
2.
The space-time continuum is an unchanging state that can be represented mathematically as being like a surface (with shape similar to a riding saddle).
3.
According to Relativistic Theory, a passage of time is described as being a movement from one place on the surface to another.
4.
According to Relativistc Theory, a movement in space is described as being a change from one place on the surface to another.
5.
The Relativistic Theory of the space-time continuum provides demonstrably correct predictions which indicates that it is correct.
6.
The unchanging state of the space time continuum is not consistent with Quantum Mechanics which presupposes that all possibilities co-exist until one of them becomes a reality.
7.
The theory of Quantum Mechanics provides demonstrably correct predictions which indicates that it is correct.
8.
Points 5 and 7 are not consistent because of point 6 (and this inconsistency is why Einstein refused to accept Quantum Mechanics).
9.
Relativistic Theory describes the overall behaviour of the universe throughout its existence while the theory of Quantum Mechanics describes behaviours of the smallest parts of the universe.
9.
A Grand Theory Of Everything would reconcile Relativistic Theory with Quantum Mechanics and, thus, provide a description of the universe at all scales.
10.
Some people who believe in ‘free will’ have difficulty with the concept of the space-time continuum because that concept implies all actions are fixed and, therefore, no person can choose an action (this disagrees with the ‘feeling’ that we do choose between possible actions).
11.
I believe in ‘free will’ (I am an Accredited Methodist Preacher) but – like most others who believe in ‘free will’ – I have no difficulty accepting that Relativistic Theory is ‘true’.
12.
Our best descriptions of the universe are defined by empirical data and the ability of those description to make accurate predictions, so there is no reason to suppose that our best descriptions of the universe have to agree with our personal experiences.
13.
Unless and until the Grand Theory Of Everything is developed then considerations of ‘free will’ are not relevant – and cannot be relevant – to scientific descriptions of the universe at any scale.
OK. That is an itemised statement of my understanding of the matter. Please tell me what you think is wrong with my understanding.
Richard

Dan
May 5, 2011 7:03 am

ferd berple;
On a more serious note;
If time, as Einstein suggests, does not exist but is only a succession of events, the succession of events like passenger metabolism, nuclear decay etc, will happen at the same rate aboard the space ship as on the earth.
Lorentz transformation of light emitted from the space ship to earth will make the space ship appear to travel slightly below c as seen from earth. As seen from the space ship, it will be steadily accellerating and will within a year reach c if accellerated at 1g.
After travelling to the end of the universe in 60 years and back in another 60 years (assuming the travellers will stop for a look at the view) the metabolism and nuclear decay on board will have seen 120 years as will the people on earth.
The big problem is to find a propellant that will allow such travel.

May 5, 2011 7:19 am

Dan says:
May 5, 2011 at 6:41 am
I have been accellerated for almost exactly 60 years at 1g now.
As my wife would put it, I am unfortunately still here and not at all near the end of the universe .
But in the wrong direction 🙂

Mark Wagner
May 5, 2011 7:22 am

@ Louis Savain:
That sounds a lot like the ‘ol “what happens at the edge of the universe” problem.
If you’re standing at the edge of the universe, and stick out your hand, where does it go?

May 5, 2011 7:26 am

“an unexpected wobble in the gyroscopes changed their orientation and interfered with the data. It took years for a team of scientists to sift through the muddy data and salvage the information they needed.”
Ah,
Hmmm.

May 5, 2011 7:43 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 5, 2011 at 6:58 am
On a more interesting note, one can ask where within the Earth gravity is the strongest? If you drill into the Earth and descent towards the center, gravity actually increases at first. [left to the student to explain why].

Increase in density. Subcrustal matter is denser and so the intrepid terranaut is closer to a stronger source of gravitation than at the surface soon after (s)he starts the descent. Gravitation falls off with the square of the distance, so the pull is stronger when the distance to the denser material is less.

BBK
May 5, 2011 7:45 am

Louis,
“There are other equally irrefutable proofs of the non-existence of space but the one above is sufficient.”
Sure, I’m going to accept the word on whether an explaination is sufficient from the guy “debunking” Einstein by merely claiming that he doesn’t like it. 🙂 (ie. “infinite regression”.) That’s a philosophical arguement, not a scientific one.
As a matter of fact, the regression isn’t a given. One article I’d read a year or two ago suggested that space time is like a web mesh. Each joint of the net is a “point” in space that something can occupy. These “points” can be stretched and compressed toward and away from each other, however. This “distance” is basically an energy.
This is a rather elegant framework and helps to understand things like the attenuation of gravity over distance. Rather than imagining that every piece of matter interacts with every other piece of matter in the universe, instead one could imagine that that matter warps its mesh and the points adjacent to its mesh. Those adjacent points modify THEIR adjacent points, etc, etc, ad infinitum, to lesser and lesser effect as you propogate away from the initial disturbance.

G. Karst
May 5, 2011 7:48 am

Lief:
Is it possible to expand space without expanding time?? … or conversely, can space contract without contracting time?
What happens to all these questions if we simply give the universe, a velocity, which induces apparent mass (hence gravity) into everything? I wish I had answers, that I could hang my hat on. GK

May 5, 2011 7:54 am

Mark Wagner says:
May 5, 2011 at 7:22 am
If you’re standing at the edge of the universe, and stick out your hand, where does it go?
Mark, I think the answer is that your hand just keeps reaching out. In other words, you can never catch up with the “edge” of the expanding Universe.

May 5, 2011 8:04 am

Leif,
I guess in order to ‘rescue the data’ the scientists must have found some systematic ‘aberrations’ in the gyroscope headings. Have they documented those and found satisfactory explanations for them?

May 5, 2011 8:12 am

tallbloke says:
May 5, 2011 at 8:04 am
I guess in order to ‘rescue the data’ the scientists must have found some systematic ‘aberrations’ in the gyroscope headings. Have they documented those and found satisfactory explanations for them?
In order to interpret the data you must first understand your instrument. Such understanding often comes after the experiment when unexpected effects show up. But, yes, they have documented this and, more importantly, understand why they occurred. This is part of the reason it took so long. Their result is rock solid. It is every scientists dream to prove Einstein wrong, so much of their analysis was fueled by this dream. As usual, Einstein came out right.

Richard S Courtney
May 5, 2011 8:29 am

G. Karst:
At May 5, 2011 at 7:48 am you ask Lief:
“What happens to all these questions if we simply give the universe, a velocity, … ?”
I ask, a velocity of the universe relative to what?
Richard

May 5, 2011 8:34 am

G. Karst says:
May 5, 2011 at 7:48 am
Is it possible to expand space without expanding time?? … or conversely, can space contract without contracting time?
Time does not ‘expand’, just rolls on. It is important to keep the notion of ‘expanding space’ clear of confusing elements. Nothing can move through space faster than light, but space itself can expand [and does] at any speed. Some of the farthest galaxies found have a red shift in excess of 10 http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/26/5920882-hubble-spots-farthest-galaxy-again which if the galaxy was moving through space would amount to 10 times light-speed. But the galaxy is not moving through space and time in that galaxy has not been distorted. Space has just expanded. The cosmic microwave radiation has a red shift of 1089 [one thousand eighty-nine], meaning that space has expanded by that factor since the radiation was emitted, some 379,000 years after the Big Bang. What we see is radiation emitted at a temperature of about 3000K, and which [wavelength] has been stretched by the expansion, so that it now is 1089 times longer, corresponding to a temperature of 2.725K.

anna v
May 5, 2011 8:42 am

Louis Savain says:
May 4, 2011 at 10:30 pm
dt/dt proves via extremely simple logic (which apparently went over your head) that, contrary to the claims of Albert Einstein’s (and many others), there is no such thing as a time dimension. That is all. This is true whether or not you or Svalgaard or anybody else likes it. I must admit that I do get a sense of satisfaction from rubbing the scientific community’s nose in their own excrement. I can’t help it. It’s the rebel in me.
According to your logic there is no such thing as a space dimension, since dx/dx and dy/dy and dz/dz are stable!
Think again.
Time is a measure of fourspace adjusted to human biology and mentality. In a science fiction scenario, one could describe “life” that evolved in what is for us the x direction while remaining well defined in t,y,z. When reaching a certain x, life would end. Whereas t,y and z could be explored and expanded into.
It is the change in the space variables that forces us to use time as time, and it is all due to the biology of the planet earth. IMO.

May 5, 2011 8:48 am

In “Light” of the confirmation of General Relativity, what would be the results of the following experiment?
Wrap an Optical Fiber around the equator of Earth. From Point A on the fiber, Send a laser pulse Eastward and Westward simultaneously. What will happen when the two pulses return to point A?
What will be the Time between the Arrival of the Westward pulse (arriving from the east) and the Eastward Pulse (from the west)?
A1. As measured by a clock at Point A.
A2. As measured by a clock a million miles from Earth in Earth’s solar orbit? (no Earth gravitational time dilation at the earth’s surface, but Solar gravitation and orbital speed the same.)
The Earth is a rotating gravitational Field,
and the fiber attached to the earth is in an accelerating frame of reference.
Assume Index of refraction is 1.62 or Speed in fiber is 200,000 km/sec. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber#Index_of_refraction
Circumference of Earth: 40,075.16 kilometers, OK to use 40,000 km even.
Rotational speed of earth at the equator: 465.1 m/s
Let’s assume standard gravity at the equator (without centrifugal Acceleration) is 9.800 m/sec.
B. What happens if the light fiber is replaced by a mirror lined vacuum tube?
C. Is B the same thing as a light fiber (a solid medium attached to the rotating earth) with an index refraction of 1.00?
D. What happens if earth’s gravity acceleration is increased to 98 m/sec (x10)? (and the shape of the earth does not change)
If anyone has a link to pages that describe this experiment, I would greatly appreciate it. Does this experiment have a common name?

May 5, 2011 9:02 am

The answer to C above is NO. Light would not bend around the circle. You need the wave guide to trap the light into a circular path, and for that you need a core with an index of refraction >1.00.

May 5, 2011 9:12 am

Stephen Rasey says:
May 5, 2011 at 8:48 am
Wrap an Optical Fiber around the equator of Earth. From Point A on the fiber, Send a laser pulse Eastward and Westward simultaneously. What will happen when the two pulses return to point A?
The simplest way to think about this is to note that because of frame-dragging, the length of the path in the direction of the rotation will look to be about an inch shorter [IIRC]. “Under the Lense–Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks the fastest is one which is rotating around the object as viewed by a distant observer. This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object will move around the object faster than light moving against the rotation as seen by a distant observer.”
Again wikipedia has a good description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

Elftone
May 5, 2011 9:14 am

BarryW says:
May 4, 2011 at 4:27 pm
The project was soon beset by problems and disappointment when an unexpected wobble in the gyroscopes changed their orientation and interfered with the data. It took years for a team of scientists to sift through the muddy data and salvage the information they needed.
That bothers me.

You’re not the only one that’s bothered by it. Seems to me they went looking for what they expected, after something unexpected occurred. Confirmation bias, possibly. ARGO data, anyone?
Another point: this is not “proof” or “confirmation” of a theory. The scientific method states that this was only a failure to falsify a prediction. Saying anything else is conjecture.

Richard M
May 5, 2011 9:33 am

According to loop quantum gravity space itself has a Planck dimension. This makes one think of ether, however, space has no mass or energy but contains items that do. All makes for some very interesting thoughts.
An analogy might be a projection screen. The screen is real and has qualities but those do not influence the content of the picture being presented on the screen. The screen itself logically exists outside the picture.

May 5, 2011 10:00 am

Lief, I don’t know the answer to these questions in the fiber loop experiment. But I know there are several things going on.
In the 0.20 seconds it takes for the pulses to travel the fiber, Point A has moved Eastward by about 93 meters. So the Eastward path is 186 meters longer than the Westward path as viewed by Observer A2. So Eastward arrives about 0.93 microsec after Westward?
Or does the velocity of the fiber cancel out the extra distance? The fiber has moved eastward by 93 meters, too. Is the light’s speed added to the fiber’s speed? So that, neglecting frame dragging the points should arrive at the same time? Or at almost the same time (got to be some Lorentz contraction in there somewhere).
If so, then the results for Question B ought to be markedly different from Question A and not just by the difference in the refractive index. But then again, there are mirrored walls are also moving with the earth’s rotation, but I have a hard time adding the rotational speed of the vacuum tube guide to the speed of the wave form inside the guide. That observer A2 away from the earth will object. Yet Simultaneity I don’t think will be an out because all observations will be done at Point A or by a distant observer A2 looking at point A.
On top of all this, we still have to apply the affects of frame dragging where by the Eastward pulse should arrive slightly faster, not slower, than the Westward pulse, all other things being equal.
So, are you saying than in A1
R1: the Eastward pulse arrives (1 in = 0.02 meters = 0.1 nano sec) Earlier than the westward pulse,
R2: the Eastward pulse arrives (0.93 microsec = 930 nanosec) (930-0.1) nanosec LATER than the westward pulse.
Or something else?

May 5, 2011 10:00 am

Elftone says:
May 5, 2011 at 9:14 am
The scientific method states that this was only a failure to falsify a prediction. Saying anything else is conjecture.
If I predict that a major earthquake [or solar flare or whatever] will occur in three weeks from today at 12 GMT and it does happen, you would call that only a failure to falsify my prediction…

G. Karst
May 5, 2011 10:12 am

Richard S Courtney:
“I ask, a velocity of the universe relative to what?”
That does seem problematic, doesn’t it? One might say, it is traveling through the same place it expands into. That, however, assumes linear, straight line thinking. I would suggest spinning (velocity) is less problematic. No particle is born void of velocity. Why do we assume, the universe came out of the big bang, without velocity?? GK
Leif Svalgaard:
I think you confused my use of the word “universe” with “galaxy” , but thanks for the reply. GK

May 5, 2011 10:21 am

Stephen Rasey says:
May 5, 2011 at 10:00 am
I don’t know the answer to these questions in the fiber loop experiment. But I know there are several things going on.
There are special relativity effects that are much larger than the frame dragging. In addition the fiber bending complicates the analysis [which I’ll not attempt here – OT for one]. I don’t think we could measure frame dragging with your experiment. A sharp test of frame dragging will be possible in a few years: The supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way causes severe frame dragging of the stars that orbit the hole. Several such stars [at different distance to the center and therefore with different frame dragging] are monitored right now and perturbations of their orbits caused by frame dragging will soon [takes time to collect enough data for a good orbit determination] be apparent.

mkelly
May 5, 2011 10:45 am

The universe expands. What is it expanding into?
Last night on “How the Universe Works” it was said that the laws of physics allow the creation of energy from nothing. They never said what law and how does that jive with the conversation of energy law (no matter/energy created or destroyed)?
What is the temperature on the surface of a super massive black hole?

Oort Cloud
May 5, 2011 10:48 am

BarryW:
I totally agree. Being in a 50 year project means there must be a lot of pressure to come up with something. People here tend to be much more cautious regarding data manipulation issues, when it comes to other topics.

Andrew
May 5, 2011 10:53 am

Comment section should be re-titled Louis Savain’s Rant…
New ways of looking at the box are good, but I must say that after reading several articles on Louis Savain’s blog as well as many of his posts here… he seems to have based much of his rant on dt/dt and inconsistencies between quantum mechanics and relativity… But dt/dt is a non-starter for scientific discussions because time is constant in a reference frame… that’s the beauty of reference frames, time in one frame moves relative to relative to another reference frame… so dt/dt is a mistaken expression…
Louis Savain should instead look at dt (reference frame 1) / dt (reference frame 2) — it is easy to show that this is certainly not a constant… thus time does move…
And — the inconsistency between relativity and quantum mechanics has not stopped either from producing useful, testable, experimental results…

Elftone
May 5, 2011 11:08 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 5, 2011 at 10:00 am
If I predict that a major earthquake [or solar flare or whatever] will occur in three weeks from today at 12 GMT and it does happen, you would call that only a failure to falsify my prediction…

Nope, I would not… and I would call you brilliant :).
My point, which was badly made by me, is that using the results of one prediction of one aspect of a theory does not confirm that theory. It merely means that, yet again the theory is holding up to some of the most rigorous testing ever, which means – in many respects – it is the best theory we have with which to work. It also means it was an amazing body of work, worthy of respect.
Do understand me: I have no problem or axe to grind with Einstein or his theories of special or general relativity. I do have a problem with inferences made that cannot be supported by the facts as reported. That’s all. Quite simple really.

May 5, 2011 11:21 am

Re: Rasey May 5, 2011 at 10:00 am
Is the light’s speed added to the fiber’s speed?
No. Otherwise Ring Laser Gyro’s and Fiber Optic Gyros would not work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser_gyroscope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre_optic_gyroscope
The thought experiment I put forth is equivalent to putting a Fiber Optic Gyro around the earth at the Equator. The Frame Drag is irrelevant in a typical Fiber Optic Gyro, but it matters when the FOG surrounds a rotating planetary mass.

May 5, 2011 11:41 am

Elftone says:
May 5, 2011 at 11:08 am
I do have a problem with inferences made that cannot be supported by the facts as reported.
The issue at hand is an inference supported by the experiment [‘facts’]. The inference was that yet another one of Einstein’s prediction has been borne out, confirming his theory. ‘Confirmation’ is just a ‘piece of evidence’. Forget about ‘proof’. No scientists use that word.

Elftone
May 5, 2011 12:39 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 5, 2011 at 11:41 am
Forget about ‘proof’. No scientists use that word.

Completely agree!

Myrrh
May 5, 2011 1:07 pm

Is no one giving me an explanation to my question because no one knows the answer?
Is Louis Savin right, that you don’t know?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/04/einstein-proven-right-again/#comment-653506
This isn’t a trick question, it’s genuine, it’s something I’ve wanted to understand for a long time and I thought I would get an explanation here.
Whenever I’ve watched this diagramatic explanation on TV I’ve not been able to understand it. Once, someone said that it was applicable all the way round, 3d, and I thought that must be some very clever physics of time/space that I wasn’t grasping. However, it looks like you don’t have an answer. The 3rd dimension appears to have stumped you.
I have taken an interest in these things on and off, what I’ve managed to gather without having the maths language, but just to make it clear, nothing in the concepts of 20th century science is alien or surprising to me. In fact, I have found it a bit amusing that recently it’s been proposed that matter can go through other matter equally solid and be in two places at once, amused because these concepts have been around for milleniums and I seem to recall that not very long ago scientists were busy poo-pooing this kind of thinking..
Anyway, all I want to know is how this diagram above works in 3D. Because, to me it cancels itself out in 3D.
And after Savin’s reply to me, /#comment-643548, I thought of this: http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/
I also thought I should wait to see if there was any answer before concluding, as I have tentatively, that it wasn’t my lack of intelligence, as I’d assumed, that made me think that the diagram and the explanation didn’t describe a three dimensional world and I couldn’t make it make sense in 3D, it was that the concept was nonsense in our physical three dimensional world.
But, before I go the whole hog here, would you Leif and all those who’ve made disparaging remarks about Louis Savin, please give me an explanation that makes sense in 3D reality.
If you can’t explain it, I would appreciate you saying so, I don’t want to keep hanging around in case you reply. If I don’t hear from you, I shall assume that Savin is right, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Because this is a very simple problem, it surely can’t be beyond your abilities to explain it.

George E. Smith
May 5, 2011 1:18 pm

“”””” wayne says:
May 4, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Those are some interesting articles Leif. The reference frame dragging was one of hardest concepts to grasp, for me anyway.
It sure seems like NASA could hire an artist that knew the basics of gravity for a story about… gravity. Neat picture but somewhat misleading if you take it too literally! Don’t look at that green-blue mesh and think that is what the real signature of Earth’s gravitational field would actually look like, well, kind of, but not correct.
At the center of the Earth there is no gravity field, zero. “””””
Somebody should quickly inform the sun, that it is having no effect at the centre of the earth’ probably because of all the magnetic shielding around that point. Oh I forgot, that all that iron would be above the curie Temperature.
But amazing that the earth can shiled the sun’s gravity.
I always thought gravity had an infinite range so that shielding is inherently impossible. Just think, if you could actually build an anti-gravity shield, then there would be no gravity on she shielded side, all the way out to infinity, and if you held it up, the entire atmosphere of the earth would rush into the shielded zone, and immediately escape to space; well at the velocity of sound anyway.

Carla
May 5, 2011 1:22 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 4, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 4, 2011 at 9:23 pm
..Yes, I’m a time-cannot-change denier. This experiment was called Gravity Probe B, because there was a Gravity Probe A long ago. In GP-A one atomic clock was sent into space while two clocks remained on Earth. Relativity predicts that the one that was sent aloft would run slower than the two on the ground, and sure enough it did, and by just the amount predicted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_A
End of discussion.
~
Hmm Gravity Probe A
From the wiki
..The probe was launched on June 18, 1976 on top of a Scout rocket and remained in space for 1 hour and 55 minutes, as intended. It then crashed into the Atlantic Ocean.
..The satellite was launched nearly vertically upward to cause a large change in the local gravity seen by the maser, reaching a height of 10,000 km (6200 miles). At this height, general relativity predicted a clock should run 4.5 parts in 1010 faster than one on the Earth.
..The experiment was thus able to test the equivalence principle. Gravity Probe A confirmed the prediction that gravity slows the flow of time, and the observed effects matched the predicted effects to an accuracy of about 70 parts per million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_A
What was up with that wobble on B .. or did I miss something. And what did we do all those years with B?
Vuks..good show..goes to show..behind every great man.. is a great woman..

TRM
May 5, 2011 1:39 pm

I love these debates. Love to read all the links everyone throws out and think about it.
One of my favorite quotes is by Einstein
“Now you think that I am looking back at my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But, on closer look, it is quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm and I am not sure if I was on the right track after all:”
Even with the whole world singing his praises he never quit trying to reconcile why his theories didn’t work to his satisfaction. Never stop trying to find holes in your work and explain them. That alone is his greatest achievement IMHO.

George E. Smith
May 5, 2011 1:42 pm

“”””” Louis Savain says:
May 4, 2011 at 10:30 pm
davidmhoffer wrote:
What pleasure or value you get out of announcing that dt/dt disproves him is beyond me.
dt/dt proves via extremely simple logic (which apparently went over your head) that, contrary to the claims of Albert Einstein’s (and many others), there is no such thing as a time dimension. “””””
Well if you want to get down to the ultimate in pedantry; there is no such thing as any of the things we talk about in Physics; or in mathematics. There is absolutely nothing in any branch of mathematics, that actually exists, and can be observed anywhere in the known or unknown universe. it is all a complete fiction, and we made it all up out of whole cloth in our heads.
We also made up all our theoretical models of Physics, and none of those things actually exist anywhere either.
But using our mathematical fictions, and the rules of manipulation we arbitrarily assigned to them, we can predict what our equally fictional models would do if we conducted a particular experiment on them.
We then let other folks know about our results, so they can go and examine the real universe and see, if they can observe any sort of analagous behavior in the real universe, to correspond to what our theories say our models would do.
So if you want to deny the existence of something; be sure to include all of the other things that don’t exist either. (except in our heads).

May 5, 2011 1:44 pm

Myrrh says:
May 5, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Is no one giving me an explanation to my question because no one knows the answer?
The answer is long. Wikipedia has some good pointers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Relativity
Because this is a very simple problem, it surely can’t be beyond your abilities to explain it.
It may be beyond your ability to understand it. By that I mean, that there are fundamental issues about what curvature is and how to express it, and those are not easy to visualize, without resorting to somewhat misleading images [like the bowling ball on a membrane]. Start with the wiki. There are also good books on the subject [referenced in the wiki]
George E. Smith says:
May 5, 2011 at 1:18 pm
I always thought gravity had an infinite range so that shielding is inherently impossible.
The Earth is in free fall around the Sun and thus does not feel any gravity [except its own], just like an astronaut in free fall about the Earth.
Carla says:
May 5, 2011 at 1:22 pm
did I miss something. And what did we do all those years with B?
As usual, yes. We spent all those years developing the technology necessary for B to work.

Z
May 5, 2011 2:49 pm

DirkH says:
May 4, 2011 at 3:32 pm
So, spacetime behaves a litle bit like honey? Why don’t we just call it ether?

Because people would fall asleep.
BarryW says:
May 4, 2011 at 4:27 pm
That bothers me.

Bothers a bunch of people. Data-mining is even more environmentally unfriendly than gold mining with nukes and aerosolised mercury…
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 4, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 4, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Relativity predicts that the one that was sent aloft would run slower than the two on the ground
Grrr, faster, of course. High gravity slows down time.

So, given this experiment ( http://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation/diamagnetic/) does this mean the frog is operating in a quicker time to the rest of the room because it is weightless, or does it not count because it isn’t gravity? Would a steel ball bearing placed into the apperatus be operating in a slower time to everything else – because it most definitely would be having a force acting upon it.
If it doesn’t count as “anti-grav”, and I’m still subject to local time if I were to use such an apperatus to annul the gravitational field of a black hole, would I have a time gradient from head to toe, given I would no longer turn into silly string? Could I use such a time gradient to time travel?
Luboš Motl says:
May 4, 2011 at 11:43 pm
It’s been an old-fashioned, happy project. But the accuracy of the frame dragging has been an immense disappointment.
With the nearly 20-percent error of the final figure, they would barely prove, at the 5-sigma confidence level, that the effect was nonzero and had the right sign…

Become a climate scientist. Having the right sign isn’t important, and one sigma is enough. (Do I really have to put /sarc there?)
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 5, 2011 at 8:34 am
Nothing can move through space faster than light, but space itself can expand [and does] at any speed. Some of the farthest galaxies found have a red shift in excess of 10 http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/26/5920882-hubble-spots-farthest-galaxy-again which if the galaxy was moving through space would amount to 10 times light-speed.

So does this mean that light emitted past a certain point in the expansion of the distance between us and a star would never reach us because it would need to be faster than light to overcome the expanding? How would this look different from the rest of the universe collapsing behind an event horizon (which of course does not require much speed at all)?
So many questions…so few answers…

May 5, 2011 2:54 pm

Naive question, but is the concept of gravity as a product of the distortion of space-time considered by its proponents to adequately explain the apparent conundrum of gravity acting instantaneously at a distance?
/Mr Lynn

May 5, 2011 2:56 pm

Carla says: May 5, 2011 at 1:22 pm
goes to show..behind every great man.. is a great woman..
The agreement between Einstein and Maric was made at the time when there was no certainty that Einstein would receive Nobel Prize some 3 years later. Eventually whole amount was supposed to be paid into Swiss account, and ex wife was expected to receive annual income.
However Einstein did not ‘honour’ the agreement, he secretly (as archive correspondence confirms) invested large part of the money in the American stock market and lost everything in the subsequent crash.
Two important points here:
1. Why Mileva Maric would insist on the Nobel Prize money if it was awarded, and not on some more immediate and more certain financial settlement.
2. Albert Einstein did not keep his word.
Perhaps, at least a share of the Prize went to a person who deserved a share, but it was not recognised as such.
Einstein said himself: “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.”

May 5, 2011 3:02 pm

Z says:
May 5, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Bothers a bunch of people. Data-mining is even more environmentally unfriendly than gold mining with nukes and aerosolised mercury…
It shouldn’t, because all that means is that they learned to understand their instrument, lending more credence to their result.
does it not count because it isn’t gravity
It doesn’t count. You could have the same effect just standing on the floor. In both cases there is a force balancing gravity.
If it doesn’t count as “anti-grav”, and I’m still subject to local time if I were to use such an apperatus to annul the gravitational field of a black hole
You certainly could [e.g. a rocket motor] to prevent getting close to the hole, but once you are inside the event horizon, no force can saved you.
So does this mean that light emitted past a certain point in the expansion of the distance between us and a star would never reach us because it would need to be faster than light to overcome the expanding?
Yes, but there is an even more fundamental limit. We can not see anything further away than the age of the Universe allows us. Light from a galaxy 1 billion light-years away we’ll never see.
So many questions…so few answers…
We actually have answers to most of this. There is a dearth of good questions.

Myrrh
May 5, 2011 3:37 pm

Leif – I’m not asking about general relativity, and a page of stuff that doesn’t address my specific problem with this is of no use to me.
My post is here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/04/einstein-proven-right-again/#comment-653506

As with a couple of others here, I still don’t understand what this warping of space time actually is. How does the Earth warp the space time around it as per the diagram since it must be doing so in all directions, unless this is all based on an idea of a flat universe?
The honey the Earth is spinning in must be a something, an ether or whatever, which is being pulled around a spinning Earth ‘equally’ in a zero warp field, so there’s no warping only Earth spinning in something.
And gravity then what? Does a spinning object attract or repel stuff around it?
In other words, can someone explain this in 3D before invoking a fourth dimension.

If the mass of the Earth is warping space around it which is what is then pulling in stuff which is gravity, it can only be doing this exactly as in the diagram, on a plane. It cannot be extrapolated to three dimensions. Because gravity is happening on every part of our Sphere. The warping then is equally so in all directions from the Earth. These cancel each other out. Therefore, there is no warping.
Since there is zero warping, what are these measuring? A honey surrounding the Earth is not a description of a two dimensional warp field. It’s a something that is being moved about by the spinning Earth in a zero warp field.
Unless you can explain directly and specifically how space is warped in three dimensions in our real three dimensional world, then the concept of there being a warp in space around our Earth into which things are pulled which is gravity is wrong.
While I was posting my previous post, I was thinking that this reminded me of some of the problems I have with AGW explanations and some examples I’ve come across while exploring this. One of which is that NASA had to junk the Stefan-Boltzmann stuff 40 years ago because it wasn’t accurate enough for its moon projects, it related to a flat Earth and they needed to work in three dimensions. Another example is, can’t recall the ‘laws’ offhand, anyway, it’s in measuring the amount of oxygen in the blood by shining a red and a near infrared light through the finger in an oximeter, they each are obsorbed differently and the final measurement has to be adjusted to compensate for the fact that the two ‘laws’ used don’t actually relate to real world conditions.
But, it seems to me. That there is something much more intrinsically wrong with the space warp concept. It is simply unrealistic in a three dimensional world because such a reaction of a body warping space all around it would cancel out the warp, so leaving a zero warp. So that can’t be an explanation for gravity.

Agile Aspect
May 5, 2011 3:38 pm

DirkH says:
May 4, 2011 at 3:32 pm
So, spacetime behaves a litle bit like honey? Why don’t we just call it ether?
——————————————————;
Good question. I consider it a terrible analogy.

Agile Aspect
May 5, 2011 3:47 pm

SamG says:
May 4, 2011 at 4:47 pm
I don’t get why the warping of space time is depicted as occurring on a single plane. Is this for illustration purposes only? I would have thought a large body bends space time in every direction.
————————————————-;
It’s difficult to visualize 4d spacetime and a 2d surface. It’s suppose to convey that matter tells spacetime how to bend, and spacetime tells matter how to move.

Louis Savain
May 5, 2011 3:49 pm

To Leif Svalgaard:
You may have set yourself up as the in-house physics expert on this blog but the inconvenient truth remains (in spite of your uneducated denial above) that nothing can move in spacetime and time cannot change by definition. Therefore, there is no time dimension as you, Einstein and the rest of the relativist crowd insist and have insisted on for a hundred years. This is rather sad (and almost inexcusable) because many generations of students have been brainwashed into chasing after a red herring. What a waste of intellect. And what a calamity for the world in terms of inhibiting scientific progress and prolonging human misery.
How to Falsify Einstein’s Physics, For Dummies. Read it and weep.

Louis Savain
May 5, 2011 3:51 pm

[Second try. It seems that my comments are no longer accepted by Anthony]
To Leif Svalgaard:
You may have set yourself up as the in-house physics expert on this blog but the inconvenient truth remains (in spite of your uneducated denial above) that nothing can move in spacetime and time cannot change by definition. Therefore, there is no time dimension as you, Einstein and the rest of the relativist crowd insist and have insisted on for a hundred years. This is rather sad (and almost inexcusable) because many generations of students have been brainwashed into chasing after a red herring. What a waste of intellect. And what a calamity for the world in terms of inhibiting scientific progress and prolonging human misery.
How to Falsify Einstein’s Physics, For Dummies. Read it and weep.

Louis Savain
May 5, 2011 3:55 pm

Anthony,
Why are you no longer accepting my comments? A simple explanation would be the honorable thing to do. You are doing the same thing regarding relativity that the global warming alarmist are doing regarding climate change science. Shame.

May 5, 2011 4:03 pm

Myrrh says:
May 5, 2011 at 3:37 pm
It is simply unrealistic in a three dimensional world because such a reaction of a body warping space all around it would cancel out the warp, so leaving a zero warp. So that can’t be an explanation for gravity.
Your problem is with the 2D analog of space warping. As I’ve said that is a somewhat misleading image. From the page you wouldn’t bother with: “At its core are Einstein’s equations, which describe the relation between the geometry of a four-dimensional, pseudo-Riemannian manifold representing spacetime, and the energy-momentum contained in that spacetime.[32] Phenomena that in classical mechanics are ascribed to the action of the force of gravity (such as free-fall, orbital motion, and spacecraft trajectories), correspond to inertial motion within a curved geometry of spacetime in general relativity; there is no gravitational force deflecting objects from their natural, straight paths. Instead, gravity corresponds to changes in the properties of space and time, which in turn changes the straightest-possible paths that objects will naturally follow.[33] The curvature is, in turn, caused by the energy-momentum of matter.”
Curvature [warp] can be defined in any number of dimensions. I’ll try one more time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_motivation_for_general_relativity gives a backgrounder that you should read and try to understand. You can ask specific questions about specific points of that exposition and I’ll try to explain. It is not good enough that you simply say “I don’t get it”. It takes an effort ‘to get it’. Make that effort.

Agile Aspect
May 5, 2011 4:08 pm

Juice says:
May 4, 2011 at 4:51 pm
I still don’t see how you can drag space. I can see gravity warping space (can I?) but I don’t get why spinning drags it. It’s as if we have the luminous aether again.
———————————————————————————;
It’s not dragging space – it’s dragging spacetime. Newtonian gravity, i.e., space + time, don’t predict the effect.

Louis Savain
May 5, 2011 4:16 pm

Hey Anthony,
Why are my comments being rejected? Why are you censoring me while giving the resident relativist deceiver, Leif Svalgaard, a free rain on your blog? Do you have one standard for climate change and another for relativity?
[Reply: I am doing most of the moderating today, not Anthony, but other duties have been a priority and I haven’t approved comments as quickly I normally do. You are not being censored, your comments have been posted. But you should be cautioned against referring to Dr. Svalgaard, an esteemed solar physicist, in derogatory terms. If you continue, your comments will be deleted. ~dbs, mod.]

Agile Aspect
May 5, 2011 4:29 pm

Louis Savain says:
May 4, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Do you realize that you are confusing the observed motion of a ticking clock with changing time? Clocks do not measure changing time. They only measure static and abstract temporal intervals.
————————————————————————–;
I think you’re confusing time intervals. The clock in your rest frame should tic at a constant rate (within acceptable precision limits) – otherwise it’s not a clock by definition.
If a second identical clock is moving relative to you at speeds approaching the speed of light, and you use the clock in your rest frame to estimate it’s tick rate, the tick rate of the second clock will change.
Can you guess how it will change? If not, then you need to review the special relativity portion of the book.
Robert Geroch’s book is a great little book on both special and general relativity is highly recommended for anyone curious about relativity.

Myrrh
May 5, 2011 4:32 pm

Leif – again with the free fall in your explanation*, as you’ve given me in a previous discussion and as above, is not what free fall means. So I still don’t understand what you’re saying and it will continue to not make sense to me because it is apparently based on a two dimensional understanding of mass. I can’t follow your explanations on four dimensions because the base is not logical in three dimensions.
Can’t you just answer my three dimensional problem? If there is something called space (or space/time) in which a body impinges warping it, then it must be impinging on it equally with all its mass in every direction, which cancels all the impinging out.
[*You said re free fall: “the Earth is in free fall around the Sun and thus does not feel any gravity [except its own], just like an astronaut in free fall about the Earth.”
This is not the definition/explanation of free fall, which is, that it is only gravity acting on it. So, the Earth feels the Sun’s gravity.

A free falling object is an object that is falling under the sole influence of gravity. Any object that is being acted upon only by the force of gravity is said to be in a state of free fall. There are two important motion characteristics that are true of free-falling objects:
– Free-falling objects do not encounter air resistance.
– All free-falling objects (on Earth) accelerate downwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s (often approximated as 10 m/s/s/ for back-of-the-envelope calculations)

]

Louis Savain
May 5, 2011 4:42 pm

Watts up?

Myrrh
May 5, 2011 4:54 pm

Sorry – that free fall info from: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/1dkin/u1l5a.cfm

Myrrh
May 5, 2011 5:01 pm

aggh. http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1dkin/u1l5a.cfm
missed the class..
The Physics Classroom – Physics Tutorial – One Dimensional Kinematics Lesson 5
Free Fall and the Acceleration of Gravity

May 5, 2011 5:06 pm

Myrrh says:
May 5, 2011 at 4:32 pm
not make sense to me because it is apparently based on a two dimensional understanding of mass.
That statement does not make sense to me
I can’t follow your explanations on four dimensions because the base is not logical in three dimensions.
Again, does not make sense to me. Spacetime is warped in four dimensions.
Can’t you just answer my three dimensional problem? If there is something called space (or space/time) in which a body impinges warping it, then it must be impinging on it equally with all its mass in every direction, which cancels all the impinging out.
And why would that be? And spacetime does not have three dimensions, so why are you hung up on a ‘three-dimensional problem’?
This is not the definition/explanation of free fall, which is, that it is only gravity acting on it. So, the Earth feels the Sun’s gravity.
gravity acting on it is not the same as feeling gravity. In classical terms we can say that the gravitational force of the Sun is precisely balanced by the centrifugal force of the Earth in its orbit, so that the Earth does not feel any residual force. Same thing with an astronaut in space. If he drops his hammer it will just float there right next to him. They are both weightless and ‘weight’ is just the force with which gravity presses you against the weight-scale. Now, in General Relativity there is no gravity at all, just the distortion of spacetime and a body simply moves in a straight line.

May 5, 2011 5:17 pm

Myrrh says:
May 5, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Free Fall and the Acceleration of Gravity
more on free fall:
“In Newton’s view, astronauts in Earth orbit are in free fall, since they are in effect falling around the Earth [which is free-falling around the Sun]. They are accelerated by gravity toward the Earth, but their inertia in the direction tangential with their path results in a curved path around the planet. In essence, they are always missing the planet in their fall toward it.
One way to view this situation, is to note that gravity by itself does not produce a weight-like force (a g-force) that people can directly sense, since gravity acts upon all parts of the body and the body only senses mechanical stresses (which to a good approximation, gravity does not produce, by itself). Thus, even a person standing on the Earth does not actually feel the pull of “gravity,” but actually feels only the push of the ground, acting upward. If this push of the ground is suddenly removed (for example, in a free fall in an elevator), the person experiences weightlessness, because all the forces which have caused the sensation of “weight” have been removed, even though gravitational interactions continue.
Often, the terms zero gravity or reduced gravity are used to mean weightlessness as it is experienced by orbiting spacecraft. The idea of gravitation itself being greatly reduced in this situation is not technically accurate in the physics of Newton, although it is accurate in the physics of Einstein (general relativity).
Spacecrafts are held in orbit by the gravity of the planet which they are orbiting. In Newtonian physics, the sensation of weightlessness experienced by astronauts is not the result of there being zero gravitational acceleration (as seen from the Earth), but of there being no g-force that an astronaut can feel because of the free-fall condition, and also there being zero difference between the acceleration of the spacecraft and the acceleration of the astronaut.”

Myrrh
May 5, 2011 5:17 pm

Leif – the problem perhaps is that I’m not making myself clear enough?
Your link to the Theoretical motivation for general relativity says:
“General relativity addresses two questions:
1. How does the curvature of spacetime affect the motion of matter?
2. How does the presence of matter affect the curvature of spacetime?”
Doesn’t address my specific point because it begins with an assumption that spacetime curvature exists.
I’m asking specifically about the diagram which may well call itself ‘space/time’ curvature, but is a description of how gravity works in space. It says, that gravity works by a mass impinging on something surrounding it that it can warp, bending it, so an object heading towards that mass will roll into the warped space, (however it does this while travelling in a straight line is irrelevant to me). The space is warped, that’s the claim.
I’m saying that can only be two dimensional, (exactly as in the diagram), because a mass will impinge itself in all directions equally, (if such a thing was happening), cancelling out all the individual impinging on all the points touching the surrounding space, in a three dimensional space.
So, there is no warp.

May 5, 2011 5:20 pm

Louis Savain says:
May 5, 2011 at 3:51 pm
and time cannot change by definition.
So, what is the definition of time? And whose definition?

u.k.(us)
May 5, 2011 6:00 pm

Stupid question,
in this thread i’ve read nothing can move faster than light (slow as it is),
due to problems with mass.
Yet, the “big bang” theory postulates ??, an expansion much faster than the speed of light. So, is there a speed limit or not?

May 5, 2011 6:20 pm

u.k.(us) says:
May 5, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Yet, the “big bang” theory postulates ??
Actually: measures an expansion much faster than the speed of light. So, is there a speed limit or not?
There is a speed for moving through space[time], but not for the expansion of space. The farthest galaxy we know of sits motionless in space that currently expands at more than 10x the speed of light [we infer this from its measured redshift].

May 5, 2011 6:41 pm

u.k.(us),
An excellent book that answers your question is Prof Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. Highly recommended.
The expansion of the universe during inflation following the Big Bang was not bound by the speed of light, which is a universal constant – but only within the universe. Greene explains it much better, with very little math involved, except in the appendix. He has a talent for explaining the physics clearly, no matter what the reader’s education level. IMHO, only Asimov was better at explaining things. [Amazon has used copies cheap, and hundreds of good reviews. You can also read a random sample of the book.]
One thing that Prof Greene explains made me do a lot of thinking: he said that by using conservative numbers, physicists determined that if the current size of the visible universe was much smaller than a grain of sand, inflation would have made the total size comparable to the size of the earth.
Our visible universe has a radius of less than 14 billion light years. Even though we cannot have any effect beyond that limit [and vice-versa], that doesn’t mean the universe ends there. That’s just our grain of sand. As every year passes, the radius of our visible universe gets one light year bigger. And the universe is different for each of us, because each of us is in the center of our own 28 billion light year-diameter sphere. There is no ‘edge’ to the universe.

Louis Savain
May 5, 2011 6:42 pm

[Snip. Arguing with a moderator’s decision is pointless. ~dbs]

May 5, 2011 7:24 pm

Myrrh says:
May 5, 2011 at 5:17 pm
I’m saying that can only be two dimensional, (exactly as in the diagram), because a mass will impinge itself in all directions equally, (if such a thing was happening), cancelling out all the individual impinging on all the points touching the surrounding space, in a three dimensional space. So, there is no warp.
A massless photon coming towards a massive body from a given direction will deviate from the usual Newtonian straight line and seem to follow a curved [warped] trajectory. This is observed everywhere around the mass and shows that the space is warped everywhere. The warping only depending on the distance from the mass. We see this at every solar eclipse [e.g. at the one in 1919 that made Einstein famous] or when receiving radio signals from spacecraft passing near the Sun. Thus space[time] is observed to be warped. This is an experimental fact. Einstein’s GR theory is the explanation of this [and many other effects that depend on warping]. That you don’t get it, is not a problem of understanding but of fixation with something you can’t even articulate to make sense. You see, in physics, the criteria is not if something makes sense [quantum mechanics does not], but if it has predictive power. GR predicts a frame dragging of a certain size. The experiment that is the topic of this thread has measured just such an effect in accordance with the prediction. This gives us confidence that the equations are a ‘correct’ description of how Nature works to the accuracy we can currently observe.

wayne
May 5, 2011 7:26 pm

George E. Smith, no shielding from other masses. I keep thinking people here at least know enough to properly limit such simple examples themselves, my bad.

Louis Savain
May 5, 2011 8:11 pm

Leif Svalgaard wrote on May 5, 2011 at 5:20 pm:
Louis Savain says:
May 5, 2011 at 3:51 pm
and time cannot change by definition.
So, what is the definition of time? And whose definition?

I’ll give you an answer but first you must apologize for calling me stupid above. Then, maybe, I’ll apologize for calling you uneducated. Until then, seeing that you have the support of the blog’s current moderator, I’ll refrain from commenting any further.

May 5, 2011 8:32 pm

Here is an explanation of the universe’s size. [Avoid the comments unless you want to go nucking futz.☺]

May 5, 2011 9:05 pm

Louis Savain says:
May 5, 2011 at 8:11 pm
I’ll give you an answer but first you must apologize for calling me stupid above. Then, maybe, I’ll apologize for calling you uneducated. Until then, seeing that you have the support of the blog’s current moderator, I’ll refrain from commenting any further.
Sure, Paris is worth a mass.

u.k.(us)
May 5, 2011 10:00 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 5, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Smokey says:
May 5, 2011 at 6:41 pm
===============
Thanks for the info guys.
A thought; can we tell which direction the “big bang” started from, by the red shifts of our vision?

May 5, 2011 10:01 pm

Leif,
Thanks for all your great replies and explanations. I learned a lot as usual, and your patience with certain individuals is commendable.
Vuk etc. says:
May 5, 2011 at 5:02 am
Was Einstein the true author of ‘Einstein’ theories?>>>
I won’t give the comment further airing by quoting it. But I will call it drivel. Einstein didn’t nearly flunk math, his school changed their grading system at one point and if you don’t know that it looks like he dropped from top of class to bottom. In fact he was top of class through out. As for attempting to slag him over time frames of publication and his divorce, give me a break. If you are arguing that he produced nothing significant after divorcing his wife, so then the work must have been done by his wife… then one can only wonder why SHE produced nothing of significance after the divorce. If you want to spin the story to new heights of silliness, I suppose you could argue that it was a “man’s world” and so she couldn’t get published without her husband as a proxy. Oddly, if she had anything additional to add that she wouldn’t find another physicist to make famous? Or go have a chat with his great detractor Milliken who designed a ten year long experiment to disprove Einstein, only to prove him right?
I guess in addition to the gene that causes some humans to spew nonsense in order to discredit actual science, there must also be a gene that causes some humans to try and drag greatness into the same mud they reside in.

don penman
May 5, 2011 10:18 pm

I find the bending of “space-time” as shown in the picture difficult to visualise,I would need to see something moving before I could tell if it was following a curved path through space.The path that objects take through space near massive bodies is bent I can visualise that,light is also bent by gravity which enables me to visualise the slowing of time.I have always had a problem with this in understanding einstein.

May 5, 2011 11:29 pm

Sorry, I cannot join the collective worship of Dr. Leif Svalgaard (no matter how actively this ritual is encouraged by moderators).
In many cases, Dr. Svalgaard doesn’t give meaningful answers or explanations. Actual intellectual content of his posts, if you look beyond the obfuscating jargon and painful reiterations of the obvious, is difficult to discern.
Dr. Svalgaard repeats textbook definitions and/or gives you a link to a Wikipedia article that contains a textbook definition — or, if you insist on clarification, pretends to misunderstand your question (while totally lacking a normal sense of humor — recall how he repeatedly failed to recognize an obvious sarcasm).
Earlier, I asked a question: “So, the flow of time depends on the presence or absence of a large mass in vicinity. Why this is never taken into account when they talk about red shift?”
Dr. Svalgaard answered: “It is.” And, in support of his learned opinion, he directed me to the Wikipedia article on gravitational red shift effect.
Unfortunately, the article that he recommended as an answer doesn’t contain a single word about how, exactly, the gravitational red shift is being taken into account by the proponents of the Big Bang dogma. This was a regular non-answer from Dr. Svalgaard, just a waste of words and time, spiced up by unwarranted condescension and inflated self-esteem.
Whatever Dr. Svalgaard tells you, take it with a pound of salt. Recent discovery of the super-massive cluster of galaxies on the edge of the IR-visible Universe makes abundantly clear that the Big Bang hypothesis is fundamentally flawed. And yet, Dr. Svalgaard continues to lecture us in the same manner, as if his BBT dogma is as immovable as the space-time itself.
I am sick and tired of Dr. Svalgaard. Without him, this site is like a gulp of fresh air. With him, it is not.

Louis Savain
May 6, 2011 12:07 am

Leif Svalgaard wrote:
Sure, Paris is worth a mass.
Certainly. However, I no longer feel that continuing this discussion is worth it to me. I have no desire to convince you of anything and I need neither your blessing nor your approval. See you around. It’s been fun.

May 6, 2011 12:12 am

Don’t mean to break in on the Einstein story, but having read this, I thought I would head over to New Scientist and see what they had to say, and instead found this:
Strange Cosmic Ray Hotspots Stalk Southern Skies
They mention:

It’s a mystery because the hotspots must be produced within about 0.03 light years of Earth. Further out, galactic magnetic fields should deflect the particles so much that the hotspots would be smeared out across the sky. But no such sources are known to exist.

Now my math isn’t my strong suit, but wouldn’t 0.03 lightyears put that near the Heliosheath ?
Plus, if I could add anything to this story about space time, wouldn’t it be better to view the space time anomaly surrounding Earth as homogeneously spatial, rather than linear?

TerryS
May 6, 2011 12:25 am

Todays xkcd seems on topic: http://xkcd.com/

May 6, 2011 1:07 am

“The four gyroscopes in GP-B are the most perfect spheres ever made by humans. These ping pong-sized balls of fused quartz and silicon are 1.5 inches across and never vary from a perfect sphere by more than 40 atomic layers. If the gyroscopes weren’t so spherical, their spin axes would wobble even without the effects of relativity.”
Except they did wobble, and it took 5 years to pick “a fantastic precision of 0.0005 arcseconds” out of the data.
And here is the claim: “Every future challenge to Einstein’s theories of general relativity will have to seek more precise measurements than the remarkable work GP-B accomplished.”
“Measurements” is not the best term for this process that was undertaken to make 86 new PhDs and confirm Einstein’s GR. The words they need are “massaging” and “modeling.” IEEE Spectrum:
“The project was on very shaky ground, because even after years of data massaging, GP-B had weakly confirmed one of the effects, frame dragging, to only the 25 to 33 percent range. But as Everitt and GP-B spokesman Bob Kahn, of Stanford, told IEEE Spectrum via e-mail, a recent breakthrough in the modeling of behavior of the satellite’s instruments has increased the data’s accuracy ”by a factor of 5 to 10”.”

May 6, 2011 1:50 am

Zeke the Sneak;
“Measurements” is not the best term for this process that was undertaken to make 86 new PhDs and confirm Einstein’s GR. The words they need are “massaging” and “modeling.” IEEE Spectrum:….>>>>
Let’s not confuse the journey with the destination. If I say that I drove to New York, showing that I spend the first two days of the trip going the wrong way doesn’t mean I didn’t get there. They published their results and my understanding is that they showed how they calculated the wobble in order to isolate the data. If there’s something wrong with how they did it, then attack that and show how it is wrong. Citing an early attempt that was later improved upon means nothing in terms of evaluating the final technique.

FrankK
May 6, 2011 1:53 am

Its interesting to see explanations such as “gravity warps the space around a mass”
I always understood it that its the mass that warps the space. Gravity is just the effect that results from that warping – its not the cause of the warping. Any body else ?

Myrrh
May 6, 2011 2:48 am

Leif says re my “I can’t follow your explanation on four dimensions because the base is not logical in three dimension”:
Again, does not make sense to me. Spacetime is warped in four dimension.
So you say. I have yet to see any proof that it exists, notwithstanding the title claim to proof here. All that this experiment shows is that the Earth’s spin is having some effect on the space around it, which is a ‘thing’; a thing like honey, a thing like ether, a thing like plasma. Whatever. It does not show that there is such a thing as spacetime. That’s still an assumption.
Re my “Can’t you just answer my three dimension problem? If there is something called space (or space/time) in which a body impinges warping it, then it must be impinging on it equally with all its mass in every direction, which cancels all the impinging out”:
And why would that be? And spacetime does not have three dimensions, so why are you hung up on a ‘three-dimensional problem’?
Because it is a three dimensional problem in a three dimensional
universe. For a moment, for our discussion, bear in mind that space/time is an assumption, it is simply space in our universe and all that experiment has shown is that space is not empty of stuff. All you are doing is calling this stuff, space/time.
Your claim is that space/time is four dimensions is irrelevant to the three dimensional problem this actually is, and into which relativity itself puts it, it is ‘stuff’ surrounding the Earth in which the Earth impinges in a three dimensional way, by its mass warping it.
So, whether we call it space or ether or space/time or honey or plasma or thin air makes no difference, it is something in which another body moves, like throwing a ball into a lake, it is still a three dimensional problem. Let’s call it stuff. This stuff you say is being warped by Earth’s mass which then creates gravity.
OK. The mass warping stuff around it can only be doing so in one direction to produce the effect of gravity claimed this warping produces. If the mass of Earth is warping the stuff around it, it must be doing it in all directions. Which means that all the directions cancel each other out and there is effectively no warp, because an object approaching it will be ‘passed’ from one warp point to the next.
What we’re looking at in analogy is the mass of the Earth warping the inside of a balloon by its mass, from the inside.
If the mass of the Earth is warping the space around it, the whole of the inside of the balloon, then it is doing so ‘equally’ at every point which cancels out the warps. ‘Equally’ like ‘average’, it could be that the Earth is heavier weighted at some point so its interacting with whatever stuff it’s in is to a greater or lesser amount than ‘equal’.
A massless photon coming towards a massive body from a given direction will deviate from the usual Newtonian straight line and seem to follow a curved [warped] trajectory. This is observed everywhere around the the mass and shows that the space is warped everywhere. The warping only depending on the distance from the mass.
But as before, you’re still presenting a three dimensional scenario. The mass of the Earth impinging on the stuff around it equally in all directions which has an effect on something coming from any particular direction. This doesn’t ‘disprove’ Newton and straight lines in any way. Something will travel in a straight line unless it’s acted on by another something. The effect on it greater the closer it gets to something which can have an effect on its path shows only that the space between the objects is a something a heavier mass affects more than something lighter.
We see this at every solar eclipse [e.g. at the one in 1919 that made Einstein famous] or when receiving radio signals from spacecraft passing near the Sun. Thus space[time] is observed to be warped. This is an experimental fact. Einstein’s GR theory is the explanation of this [and many other effects that depend on warping].

“Thus space[time] is observed to be warped” – Thus space is observed to be warped, not spacetime, so thank you for the brackets. But as above, it’s still a 3D problem, of surfaces meeting. And all it shows is that the space around the Earth is a something which is affected by Earth’s mass.
that you don’t get it, is not a problem of understanding but of fixation with something you can’t even articulate to make sense.
The fixation, as I see it, is that you have called simple 3D reality 4 by including time and then use only 3D reality to explain it. And then complain I don’t understand.. A 3D reality which stands on its own as I’ve gone through above raises questions enough.
So, what I’m trying to understand is how this mass of Earth impinges on the surrounding stuff. If it is impinging really equally in all directions actually distorting the stuff around it equally in all directions, then any effect it would have at any discrete point is cancelled out. Like a ball just heavy enough to be suspended in the middle of a bath full of water.
Like air pressure perhaps? The weight of the gas Air on the Earth is around a ton/square foot, but it’s said that it is pressing on us equally in all directions so we don’t feel it.
But, like Air pressure, it could be that the stuff around the Earth is exerting pressure equally all around on the Earth as much as it could be that the Earth is impinging equally on the stuff all around.
Anyway, as for something falling to Earth in free fall, it’s still a straight line. The astronaut falling to Earth doesn’t get sucked into a ‘vortex’, if such exists by the warping, at any point because his mass is heavy enough to counter any such, a smaller photon might get caught up in such, but we know that light from the Sun comes to us in a straight line, don’t we? And it doesn’t go into an orbit around the Sun after escaping from it as radiation.
You see, in physics, the criteria is not if something makes sense [quantum mechanics does not], but if it has predictive power.
? I thought the point of science was to understand our natural world, how it worked. You may well be able to predict something but attributing it to the gods, but that isn’t an answer of how it works.
GR predicts a frame dragging of a certain size. The experiment that is the topic of this thread has measured just such an effect in accordance with the prediction. This gives us confidence that the equations are a ‘correct’ description of how Nature works to the accuracy we can currently observe.
Does it? All it shows it seems to me is whatever you have taken as ‘time’ in the ‘space/time’ you call warping, which is really only a 3D model of an object with mass in stuff, is irrelevant to the effect of warping. Except in that the speed of a lighter object is less affected by the mass of a heavier body the further away it is from it.
Doesn’t prove time speeds up, but only that an object can go faster the further it is from a force which can slow it down. I read the page on time linked above. And I couldn’t find anything in it that showed time is affected, only speed.

Myrrh
May 6, 2011 3:51 am

Leif – re my: “Which means that all the directions cancel each other out and there is effectively no warp, because an object approaching it will be ‘passed’ from one warp to the next.”
Sorry, thinking of something else while typing another. If all the points are equally impinging so there’s no actual ‘vortex of gravity’ at any point, then it’s the spin of the Earth which is disturbing the stuff around it, and so something’s path could be distorted in approaching Earth, in effect like being passed from one point to the next. How it gets through this is still normal 3rd physics, depending on it own weight and speed. So radio signals can be bent around, to resume after in the same line or become so distorted in the process that they disintegrate into shash.
Isn’t this how light was discovered to be a wave as well as a photon? That it could bend round corners.

May 6, 2011 4:48 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 5, 2011 at 8:12 am
tallbloke says:
May 5, 2011 at 8:04 am
I guess in order to ‘rescue the data’ the scientists must have found some systematic ‘aberrations’ in the gyroscope headings. Have they documented those and found satisfactory explanations for them?
In order to interpret the data you must first understand your instrument. Such understanding often comes after the experiment when unexpected effects show up. But, yes, they have documented this and, more importantly, understand why they occurred.

Terrific. Where is this documented so we can have a look?

May 6, 2011 4:53 am

In many cases, Dr. Svalgaard doesn’t give meaningful answers or explanations. Factual content of his posts, if you look beyond the obfuscating jargon and painful reiterations of the obvious, is difficult to discern.
Dr. Svalgaard repeats textbook definitions and/or gives you a link to a Wikipedia article that contains a textbook definition — or, if you insist on clarification, pretends to misunderstand your question (while totally lacking a normal sense of humor — recall how he repeatedly failed to recognize an obvious sarcasm).
Earlier, I asked a question: “So, the flow of time depends on the presence or absence of a large mass in vicinity. Why this is never taken into account when they talk about red shift?”
Dr. Svalgaard answered: “It is.” And, in support of his learned opinion, he directed me to the Wikipedia article on gravitational red shift effect.
Unfortunately, the article that he recommended as an answer doesn’t contain a single word about how, exactly, the gravitational red shift is being taken into account by the proponents of the Big Bang dogma. This was a regular non-answer from Dr. Svalgaard, just a waste of words and time, spiced up by unwarranted condescension and inflated self-esteem.
Whatever Dr. Svalgaard tells you, take it with a pound of salt. Recent discovery of the super-massive cluster of galaxies on the edge of the IR-visible Universe makes abundantly clear that the Big Bang hypothesis is fundamentally flawed. And yet, Dr. Svalgaard continues to lecture us in the same manner, as if his BBT dogma is as immovable as the space-time itself.

Joe
May 6, 2011 5:04 am

The issue of time vs change is discussed here for all you time deniers :p.
http://telicthoughts.com/philosophy-and-metaphysics-interlude-creation-ex-nihilo-vs-change-2/

Joe Lalonde
May 6, 2011 5:12 am

Anthony,
Science still has not included the forward momentum of the solar system to be of any consequence. So, motion is not included.
Changing of circular motion speeds also changes the gravity being felt as now centrifugal force has increased or decreased.
Global rotation is far more complex than a circle on a single plane in motion.

May 6, 2011 5:17 am

Jupiter mass is more than 300 times the Earth’s, the surface gravity is ~2.5G. Jupiter’s orbit is the place where theory will be conclusively verified or dismissed.

Carla
May 6, 2011 5:36 am

Joe Lalonde says:
May 6, 2011 at 5:12 am
Anthony,
Science still has not included the forward momentum of the solar system to be of any consequence. So, motion is not included.
Changing of circular motion speeds also changes the gravity being felt as now centrifugal force has increased or decreased.
Global rotation is far more complex than a circle on a single plane in motion.
~
good comment.
Alexander Feht says:
May 6, 2011 at 4:53 am
~
Some of us here need a little textbook knowledge and subsequent explainations as given by Dr. S.
And for the record I personally have never been on my knees before him.. lol did I say that..whooaa..Happy Friday..

Vince Causey
May 6, 2011 5:46 am

Myrrh,
You have articulated a question that I have often thought about. For what it’s worth, here’s my take on the warping of spacetime.
As I understand it, I think you are correct – 3d space is not warped – that wouldn’t make sense. The presence of matter makes time run slower and therefore what is being warped is time. You have to think of 4d space-time that is being warped, and the warping is because of the time dimension, not the 3 spatial dimensions. A particle curves towards the Earth because time is running more slowly closer to the Earth. It is a rule of GR that a particle will move from one place to another so that a clock carried on it will show a longer time than it would on any other trajectory. This is a reason why the particle moves towards the Earth. If it didn’t do so, its clock would show a shorter time. From the framework of 4d spacetime, we say that the particle is following the shortest distance in spacetime – ie, a straight line through spacetime – and in doing so the particle moves in a curve through space, but the space itself isn’t warped.

May 6, 2011 6:18 am
beng
May 6, 2011 6:38 am

Some people apparently just can’t accept reality. Einstein’s special & general relativity make extremely precise predictions — if results are even slightly off, his theories would be toast. So far, every prediction has been verified.
No one says relativity is complete — it’s not meant to address the very tiny scales. That’s different from being wrong, just incomplete.

Slartibartfast
May 6, 2011 9:35 am

Time cannot change by definition.

Again: this needs unpacking. If you’re wondering why you’re being ill-treated, it just might be the glib arguments-by-assertion.
If you seek to illuminate, by all means have at it. What you’ve been doing looks more like trolling, from where I stand.
FWIW.

William Mason
May 6, 2011 9:45 am

Myrrh says:
May 5, 2011 at 1:07 pm
“Is no one giving me an explanation to my question because no one knows the answer?”
I don’t think the picture is meant to be taken literally. It is drawn that way because if you draw every possible angle in 3d you would just see a sphere of ink. It is drawn in the two dimensions so you can see the shape and once understanding the concept use your mind to apply it to the 3rd dimension.

George E. Smith
May 6, 2011 11:11 am

“”””” Leif Svalgaard says:
May 5, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Myrrh says:
May 5, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Is no one giving me an explanation to my question because no one knows the answer?
The answer is long. Wikipedia has some good pointers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Relativity
Because this is a very simple problem, it surely can’t be beyond your abilities to explain it.
It may be beyond your ability to understand it. By that I mean, that there are fundamental issues about what curvature is and how to express it, and those are not easy to visualize, without resorting to somewhat misleading images [like the bowling ball on a membrane]. Start with the wiki. There are also good books on the subject [referenced in the wiki]
George E. Smith says:
May 5, 2011 at 1:18 pm
I always thought gravity had an infinite range so that shielding is inherently impossible.
The Earth is in free fall around the Sun and thus does not feel any gravity [except its own], just like an astronaut in free fall about the Earth. “””””
So if the earth (at its center) does NOT feel any gravity; then why doesn’t it just stop falling; why does it not “……continue in a straight line, unless acted on by an external force…..” As that Isaac Newton chap suggested should happen ?

Jim Masterson
May 6, 2011 12:14 pm

>>
George E. Smith says:
May 6, 2011 at 11:11 am
George E. Smith says:
May 5, 2011 at 1:18 pm
I always thought gravity had an infinite range so that shielding is inherently impossible.
The Earth is in free fall around the Sun and thus does not feel any gravity [except its own], just like an astronaut in free fall about the Earth. “””””
<<
It’s sloppy terminology. I’m giving up correcting statements on this thread, because my corrections have more errors that the original posts. However, even astronauts in free fall feel gravity about the Earth. They have weight which is defined as the acceleration of gravity (at their height). The forces may cancel, but the gravity is still there. This is especially true if you’re in free fall around a medium-sized black hole near the event horizon (or closer). You’ll be dealing with the “gravitational” tidal force which will probably tear you apart even though you may feel “weightless.”
Jim

May 6, 2011 12:35 pm

davidmhoffer says:
May 6, 2011 at 1:50 am
Zeke the Sneak;
“Measurements” is not the best term for this process that was undertaken to make 86 new PhDs and confirm Einstein’s GR. The words they need are “massaging” and “modeling.” IEEE Spectrum:….>>>>
Let’s not confuse the journey with the destination. If I say that I drove to New York, showing that I spend the first two days of the trip going the wrong way doesn’t mean I didn’t get there. They published their results and my understanding is that they showed how they calculated the wobble in order to isolate the data. If there’s something wrong with how they did it, then attack that and show how it is wrong. Citing an early attempt that was later improved upon means nothing in terms of evaluating the final technique.

I am showing how the methodology behind this finding yields nothing near as precise as is being claimed. There is a lot of micetype on the exquisiteness of GP-B’s results and I think people should have a look before getting mesmerised by the press releases and signing for it. 5 years of computer processing on a wobbling gyroscope plus a computer model correction at the last minute when funds ran out for Stanford is a considerable caveat. What does this experiment really tell us?

May 6, 2011 1:15 pm

George E. Smith says:
May 6, 2011 at 11:11 am
then why doesn’t it just stop falling; why does it not “……continue in a straight line, unless acted on by an external force…..” As that Isaac Newton chap suggested should happen ?
That chap Einstein suggests that the Earth follows a straight line [geodesic] in curved spacetime.
Jim Masterson says:
May 6, 2011 at 12:14 pm
However, even astronauts in free fall feel gravity about the Earth. They have weight
I think they would say that they are weighless. You cannot ‘feel’ gravity, only differences in gravity which put stress on your body.

Z
May 6, 2011 1:51 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 5, 2011 at 3:02 pm
It shouldn’t, because all that means is that they learned to understand their instrument, lending more credence to their result.

Understanding is always tempered by wish-fulfilment, that’s why I’m a great believer in everything being simple and plain. OK, I admit getting something round to an atom is far from simple – but the concept of “round” is easy to understand.
The concept of “do a lot of complicated procedures on a pile of crap data until it sings like a canary” is easy to understand too – just in a different way.
I think this ( http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2011/05/confirmation-bias-as-a-feature-not-a-bug-the-facts-dont-really-matter.html ) is quite a good piece – though it may be in a Galaxy Far Far Away from cosmology.
It doesn’t count. You could have the same effect just standing on the floor. In both cases there is a force balancing gravity.
You don’t have the same effect standing on the floor. Go back to the Einstein “man in an elevator” thought experiment. A man in an elevator doesn’t know whether he’s accelerating, or he’s under the influence of gravity. Similarly, he doesn’t know whether he’s falling, or under the influence of magnetism…
You certainly could [e.g. a rocket motor] to prevent getting close to the hole, but once you are inside the event horizon, no force can saved you.
Why? I though the event horizon stopped things getting out, not in. The idea is not to keep away from the hole, but to prevent tidal forces from shredding you. Drop through the event horizon intact, and all sorts of censorship problems disappear.
Yes, but there is an even more fundamental limit. We can not see anything further away than the age of the Universe allows us. Light from a galaxy 1 billion light-years away we’ll never see.
I think you missed my point. Universe is (estimated and rounded – start waving your hands here) 14 billion years old. Therefore we can’t see anything further than 14 billion LY away. Simply because there isn’t light old enough to gone any further. If some part of the universe has expanded at 10 times lightspeed starting at T-2billion years (say) and lasted for 1 billion years (for example), then we won’t be able to see anything of the universe that emitted light between those two time frames. We’ll see older stuff which traversed the “expansion zone” before it expanded, and younger stuff which is before the “expansion zone”, but anything that emitted during the “expansion” will still be travelling. A 10 billion LY gap will take 10 billion LYs to traverse, and it didn’t happen far enough in the past for that.
I would have thought that would have been noticed.
Obviously the whole universe didn’t expand at 10 times light speed but only select areas, as I’m sure many of the older stars would have noticed their bits becoming distant otherwise.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 5, 2011 at 7:24 pm
A massless photon coming towards a massive body from a given direction will deviate from the usual Newtonian straight line and seem to follow a curved [warped] trajectory.

Well I would point out that a travelling photon isn’t massless – E=Mc^2 and all that. A stationary photon is massless, but since they don’t actually exist, it’s easy to see how you can achieve that little trick.
Though one of the other posters has come up with something that leads to a bit of a poser. If the net attraction of a perfect ball within a perfect sphere is zero – does that still apply if you spin it?

George E. Smith
May 6, 2011 2:08 pm

“”””” Leif Svalgaard says:
May 6, 2011 at 1:15 pm
George E. Smith says:
May 6, 2011 at 11:11 am
then why doesn’t it just stop falling; why does it not “……continue in a straight line, unless acted on by an external force…..” As that Isaac Newton chap suggested should happen ?
That chap Einstein suggests that the Earth follows a straight line [geodesic] in curved spacetime.
So all of the planets, and I presume, everything else in THE Universe are travelling in a straight line. I suppose it is the same straight line for all of them. So why do some of them collide into each other now and then ?
Are we all going somewhere or does this straight line, always end up in the same place. Why doesn’t everything just stay in the same place all the time; why move ? What does move mean anyway ?

Richard S Courtney
May 6, 2011 2:20 pm

G. Karst:
At May 5, 2011 at 10:12 am you ask me:
“No particle is born void of velocity. Why do we assume, the universe came out of the big bang, without velocity?? GK”
I answer that no assumption is needed.
1.
A velocity is a rate of movement as observed from a stationary point.
2.
The universe is everything so it cannot be observed to move because there is no external reference point from which to make the observation.
I hope the point is now clear.
Richard

Louis Savain
May 6, 2011 2:23 pm

Slartibartfast says:
May 6, 2011 at 9:35 am
Time cannot change by definition.
Again: this needs unpacking. If you’re wondering why you’re being ill-treated, it just might be the glib arguments-by-assertion.
If you seek to illuminate, by all means have at it. What you’ve been doing looks more like trolling, from where I stand.

I explained it already. See comment above on May 4, 2011 at 7:52 pm. It’s a very simple thing really. And it is known to many people, including some relativists. Don’t believe Leif Svalgaard when he says that the earth follows a straight path (geodesic) in curved spacetime. And it does not matter if Einstein said it. It’s all BS because nothing can move in spacetime. That’s right; no time travel, no black holes, wormholes and all that other Star-Trek voodoo physics nonsense.
It’s a devastating truth about general relativity and it’s the reason that you will not hear it from professional deceivers like Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene and the others. They’ve been lying from day one. However, many relativists like Leif Svalgaard here, are just ignorant of this truth. It never fails to catch them by surprise.

Richard S Courtney
May 6, 2011 2:44 pm

Louis Savain:
You have repeatedly demanded answers from Leif Svalgaard.
But you have not answered my polite question to you at May 5, 2011 at 7:02 am.
Please note that my question was a request for you to tell me the errors you think exist in my understandings of relativistic theory which I itemised. This seems a small request when compared to the detailed demands you have made of Leif Svalgaard so I wonder why you have not responded to it.
Richard

Richard S Courtney
May 6, 2011 2:49 pm

Louis Savain:
Please answer my polite request to you at May 5, 2011 at 7:02 am.
It seems a small thing to ask when compared to the detailed demands you have since made to Leif Svalgaard.
Richard

May 6, 2011 2:50 pm

Louis Savain,
There is a good reason for education credentials. If someone has a PhD in Mathematics, we can pretty much rely on what he says, even if we can’t understand all of it.
Dr Hawking, Dr Greene and Dr Svalgaard all have legitimate credentials in their respective fields, so you cannot seriously call them ‘ignorant.’ And just because they may not agree with you does not make them ‘professional deceivers’ or ‘liars.’ I think you need to back off the pejoratives, and accept the possibility that you could simply be wrong.
BTW, what is the extent of your education, and in what field? That will assist in deciding if you should be taken as seriously as those you are attacking.

May 6, 2011 3:02 pm

davidmhoffer says: May 5, 2011 at 10:01 pm
…………..
Thank you for your analysis.
ETH Zurich has exam records.
Facts on record are :
Mileva Maric insisted on ‘any future Nobel Prize money’.
Einstein agreed.
Maric kept her mouth shut for the rest of her life.
Einstein did not keep fully to the agreement.
Einstein: “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.”

Louis Savain
May 6, 2011 3:18 pm

Smokey,
You are repeating the old “credentials” false argument. It is a favorite of the establishment crackpots because this is how they fool the public into believing that they alone (the crackpots) can understand science and nature and explain it to the rest of us. Just like the high priests and wizards of old. But we are not fooled any longer. We, too, can think for ourselves. Surprise!
The truth is that reasoning has nothing to do with credentials. It has to do with simple logic that everybody can understand. If you cannot understand the simple reasons that I gave earlier to defend my contention that time cannot change and that, as a result, nothing can move in spacetime, then something is either wrong with you or you are one of the deceivers.
I always tell it like I see it.

Bart
May 6, 2011 3:27 pm

Juice says:
May 4, 2011 at 4:51 pm

“I still don’t see how you can drag space. I can see gravity warping space (can I?) but I don’t get why spinning drags it. It’s as if we have the luminous aether again.”
Saying space is being “dragged” is an unfortunate metaphor. What is happening is that the geodesic lines are slightly skewed, such that a body with no external force acting on it follows a path which deviates slightly from that which it would follow about a non-spinning object.
Louis Savain says:
May 4, 2011 at 7:52 pm

“A change in time also implies a rate of change which is given as dt/dt, which is, of course, nonsense.
Figure it out on your own.”

The same could be said of a Galilean universe. A path on a circle embedded in two dimensions obeys x*dx + y*dy = 0. Thus, x*dx/dx + y*dy/dx = 0. But, dx/dx = 1. Does that mean one cannot move around the circle, because x is stationary?
ferd berple says:
May 4, 2011 at 9:10 pm

“From the point of view of the folks onboard the spaceship, they have travelled much faster than light.”
How, when it took 13 billion years for the light to reach there? It’s not like they carried the light they see on the spacecraft with them, and got it there in 60 years.
Myrrh says:
May 5, 2011 at 1:01 am

“As with a couple of others here, I still don’t understand what this warping of space time actually is, how does the Earth warp the space time around it as per the diagram since it must be doing so in all directions, unless this is all based on an idea of a flat universe?”
Forget about the diagram. It is only an analogy which is failing to provide you with the correct insight.
Jim Masterson says:
May 5, 2011 at 1:23 am

“It’s harder to show mathematically, but a ring can’t orbit around a star either (as in Ringworld).”
But, it can remain steadily oriented in space through gyroscopic stiffness, and its CG will move approximately with the Star’s CG. Some stationkeeping may be needed to deal with stray forces which act differently on the Star and the ring.
Geoffrey Donald Broadbent says:
May 5, 2011 at 4:12 am

“I just cannot grasp how he imagined the concepts he did let alone convert them to exacting mathematics.”
He stood on the shoulders of giants like Riemann and others. Hilbert actually derived GR first, but graciously allowed Einstein to claim full credit since he got the ball rolling, as it were.
Dan says:
May 5, 2011 at 7:03 am

“If time, as Einstein suggests, does not exist but is only a succession of events, the succession of events like passenger metabolism, nuclear decay etc, will happen at the same rate aboard the space ship as on the earth.”
There is no requirement that it do so. In physics, it is said that whatever is not specifically prohibited is mandatory.
G. Karst says:
May 5, 2011 at 7:48 am

Is it possible to expand space without expanding time??”
Yes.
G. Karst says:
May 5, 2011 at 10:12 am

“Why do we assume, the universe came out of the big bang, without velocity??”
Even in Newtonian mechanics, all inertial frames at constant velocity are equivalent, in that the same physical laws hold in each.
mkelly says:
May 5, 2011 at 10:45 am

Last night on “How the Universe Works” it was said that the laws of physics allow the creation of energy from nothing.”
Yes, you just have to create equal parts pro-nothing and anti-nothing. Why we do not see equal amounts of anti-nothing is a matter of active investigation.
Stephen Rasey says:
May 5, 2011 at 11:21 am

“The Frame Drag is irrelevant in a typical Fiber Optic Gyro, but it matters when the FOG surrounds a rotating planetary mass.”
Yes, but the effect is relatively small. That is why they needed such a precision instrument to see this effect in the first place.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 5, 2011 at 8:34 am

“Some of the farthest galaxies found have a red shift in excess of 10… which if the galaxy was moving through space would amount to 10 times light-speed.”
That is incorrect. If it were moving faster than the speed of light, we would never see it. This is known as the Horizon Problem.
Myrrh says:
May 5, 2011 at 3:37 pm

“If the mass of the Earth is warping space around it which is what is then pulling in stuff which is gravity, it can only be doing this exactly as in the diagram, on a plane. It cannot be extrapolated to three dimensions.”
Why not?
Myrrh says:
May 5, 2011 at 5:17 pm

“I’m saying that can only be two dimensional, (exactly as in the diagram), because a mass will impinge itself in all directions equally, (if such a thing was happening), cancelling out all the individual impinging on all the points touching the surrounding space, in a three dimensional space.”
You need to integrate the pull over the entire mass. Gravity surrounding a spherical mass behaves externally just as though the mass were concentrated at a single point in the center.
Alexander Feht says:
May 6, 2011 at 4:53 am

“Unfortunately, the article that he recommended as an answer doesn’t contain a single word about how, exactly, the gravitational red shift is being taken into account by the proponents of the Big Bang dogma.”
It is taken into account, but it is much, much smaller than the Doppler shift.
Joe Lalonde says:
May 6, 2011 at 5:12 am

“Changing of circular motion speeds also changes the gravity being felt as now centrifugal force has increased or decreased.”
Changing the speed requires an external force, which alters the orbit predictably.
Vince Causey says:
May 6, 2011 at 5:46 am

“The presence of matter makes time run slower and therefore what is being warped is time.”
Actually, both space and time are warped. Visualizing that is one of the things which makes the subject so challenging.

Harry
May 6, 2011 3:30 pm

I think that a clock( including atomic ones) , which is a mechancal device is different from “Time”, i.e time does not change when mechanical devices does. Therefore I think that nothing is “proven” regarding relativistic time by this study. Mechanical devices, not time, are disturbed by speed and gravity.

Bart
May 6, 2011 4:28 pm

Harry says:
May 6, 2011 at 3:30 pm
“Mechanical devices, not time, are disturbed by speed and gravity.”
What’s the difference? Time is the rate at which atomic processes – which encompasses mechanical, chemical, and any other process – occur with respect to one another.
Moderator – did my longer list of replies to others get eaten by the spam filter?

Bart
May 6, 2011 4:29 pm

Oh, there it is. Never mind…

Bart
May 6, 2011 5:02 pm

responding to Alexander Feht @ May 6, 2011 at 4:53 am
“It is taken into account, but it is much, much smaller than the Doppler shift.”

Should have said cosmological red shift.

Bart
May 6, 2011 5:05 pm

responding to Leif Svalgaard @ May 5, 2011 at 8:34 am:
I should have pointed out that relative velocity of 98.36% of the speed of light would give a Doppler redshift of 10.

Louis Savain
May 6, 2011 5:12 pm

Bart wrote:
Louis Savain says:
May 4, 2011 at 7:52 pm
“A change in time also implies a rate of change which is given as dt/dt, which is, of course, nonsense.
Figure it out on your own.”
The same could be said of a Galilean universe. A path on a circle embedded in two dimensions obeys x*dx + y*dy = 0. Thus, x*dx/dx + y*dy/dx = 0. But, dx/dx = 1. Does that mean one cannot move around the circle, because x is stationary?

Huh? Are you serious or are you just grasping at straws? You realize that dx is not an evolution (change) parameter in physics, don’t you. The only acceptable evolution parameter in physics is dt, a temporal interval.
Me thinks you are one of the deceivers. Thanks for the laughs.

Andrew
May 6, 2011 5:48 pm

Two days and still running like mad…
Louis Savain is rather dogmatic about dismissing the “dogmatic” views of the establishment… it’s quite interesting really… but it’s very sad to see such religious self righteousness from someone pretending to have the “truth”… oh well…
And in true religious intonations and fervour, “As for me and my house… I name Louis Savain a pushy unimaginative pompous and under educated fraud…”
What say you? … I say “ban the fraud” … but then again I guess all blogs need trolls…

Bart
May 6, 2011 5:49 pm

Louis Savain says:
May 6, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Change x to t, then, if you must see things that way.
Really, you are making no sense at all. I think we, you and I, are done.

kim
May 6, 2011 6:13 pm

David Hilbert on the derivations of the field equations: “Every boy in the streets of Gottingen understands more about four dimensional geometry than Einstein, yet, in spite of that, Einstein did the work and not the mathematicians.”
===============

Louis Savain
May 6, 2011 7:01 pm

Andrew says:
May 6, 2011 at 5:48 pm
<ad hominem deleted
You may have an intelligent argument hidden somewhere but I’m not holding my breath waiting for it.
Bart says:
May 6, 2011 at 5:49 pm
I think we, you and I, are done.
Bye.

May 6, 2011 7:41 pm

wayne says:
May 4, 2011 at 4:23 pm
“Neat picture but somewhat misleading if you take it too literally! Don’t look at that green-blue mesh and think that is what the real signature of Earth’s gravitational field would actually look like, well, kind of, but not correct.
At the center of the Earth there is no gravity field, zero.”

It’s only the net acceleration due to gravity that is cancelled out. You are confusing that with the field density, which should be at a maximum at the centre of the Earth. (i.e. There should be no need to show an inverted dimple in the grid as proposed earlier.)
George E. Smith says:
May 5, 2011 at 1:18 pm
“Somebody should quickly inform the sun, that it is having no effect at the centre of the earth, probably because of all the magnetic shielding around that point. Oh I forgot, that all that iron would be above the curie Temperature.”
Ah, I love sarcasm, but it seems to have got the better of you. The gridmap takes no account of the effect of the sun’s gravity. 😉
And the Curie temp affects magnetic properties (permeability, susceptibility, etc.) as I’m sure you are well aware, so if you’ve solved the problems of electromagnetogravitation then, please, don’t hold back.
“I always thought gravity had an infinite range …”
Yes. Looking carefully at the diagram I notice a “heliopause” in the drag frame, yet I doubt there should be any reason to expect any such dragpause, or spinpause.

May 6, 2011 8:53 pm

Smokey, lacking a PhD is a problem for some of us.
Perhaps one could dress in a cape and give the ol “ant on the surface of a balloon= expanding universe” lecture?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/04/einstein-proven-right-again/#comment-654069

wayne
May 6, 2011 9:55 pm

Slacko says:
May 6, 2011 at 7:41 pm
wayne says:
May 4, 2011 at 4:23 pm
“Neat picture but somewhat misleading if you take it too literally! Don’t look at that green-blue mesh and think that is what the real signature of Earth’s gravitational field would actually look like, well, kind of, but not correct.
At the center of the Earth there is no gravity field, zero.”
It’s only the net acceleration due to gravity that is cancelled out. You are confusing that with the field density, which should be at a maximum at the centre of the Earth. (i.e. There should be no need to show an inverted dimple in the grid as proposed earlier.)

No, I wasn’t speaking of field density but acceleration. You think it would be at maximum but I know there is none at the center, in fact, no such field exists at all. It is just that if you could hollow out a room at the center of the Earth to perform an experiment you would find no acceleration from gravity at all, no curvature of geodesics, flat space and you would be weightless. Gravity in Einstein’s general relativity is not a field, I did mention that didn’t I, well, I shouldn’t have, my mistake, that is a conceptional effect of the curvature itself.
The dimple needs to be there for the lines shown seem to be representing the acceleration caused by the curvature and there isn’t any at the center and it does decrease linearly (if the density is constant) all of the way from the surface downward to the center. The general idea of that graphic is fine but for that tiny detail.
If you don’t believe it write a small program to integrate it numerically, maybe you have not been surprised by that very fact yet. Before I did that very thing a few years ago I didn’t realize that. Now I do so though others might learn a bit from my effort.

May 6, 2011 10:07 pm

Bart said on Einstein proven right, again
May 6, 2011 at 5:05 pm
I should have pointed out that relative velocity of 98.36% of the speed of light would give a Doppler redshift of 10.
Doppler or cosmological red shift, it makes no difference. At a red shift of 10 the expansion speed is the equivalent of 10 x light speed, but since the galaxy is not moving at all we can easily see it. What happens is just that the wave length of the radiation is getting larger and larger, 10x in fact.

don penman
May 6, 2011 10:09 pm

I think that I beginning to understand this a bit better,the equations of Newton and Einstein don’t deal with actual space and time just our measurement of space and time,Einstein though sees Gravity as a field rather than as an attraction between two objects.

anna v
May 7, 2011 1:34 am

Moderators, please do not let people who do not even know mathematics crowd the place with nonsense. This gentleman Louis Savain does not know simple differential equations, when he claims that dt/dt is constant means that time does not change.
He cannot understand the simple concept that variables are checked against each other and produce functional shapes in either space or time, not against themselves.
Has he not been given enough exposure? He has his own site anyway.

Dan
May 7, 2011 2:05 am

Bart, May 6:
I am pleased to be included in your discussion.
However, you are missing my point, and that is probably my fault, that the succession of events outside and inside of our bodies ARE what we percieve as time flowing. Just like the cogs on the gears in a clock, where one particular cog must meet another particular cog for the next pair to be able to meet, we have the sensation of time as events pass in succession in our field of view.
These successions will probably be at the same rate everywhere, happening at a discrete fraction of c, which appears to be a universal figure.
The Lorentz transformations make objects appear not to travel faster than light, but in their own frame they do. How would the rocket know when to stop accellerating and instead gain mass? And in reference to what?
I found that this view of time helped a lot when reading Einsteins book. You may say it led to my misunderstanding of the subject, but I am not so sure of that.

Bart
May 7, 2011 2:27 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 6, 2011 at 10:07 pm
“Doppler or cosmological red shift, it makes no difference.”
It makes a huge difference.
“At a red shift of 10 the expansion speed is the equivalent of 10 x light speed.”
The relationship you are using only holds in the low redshift regime.

kim
May 7, 2011 3:33 am

Headbomb and Blackburne
Wot de Hell is going on?
Wicked Pediants.
=========

May 7, 2011 5:26 am

Bart says:
May 7, 2011 at 2:27 am
“Doppler or cosmological red shift, it makes no difference.”
It makes a huge difference.
“At a red shift of 10 the expansion speed is the equivalent of 10 x light speed.”
The relationship you are using only holds in the low redshift regime.

My point is that the expansion speed can exceed light speed as your graph shows.

Richard M
May 7, 2011 6:11 am

I suspect that everything in G.R. could be explained by viewing space as a collection of processors (one per Planck unit of space) and matter as information.
For example, the more matter in the vicinity of any space unit would require more “processing time”. Hence, external to that unit, “time” would slow down. It would be interesting if someone (smarter than me) would try and determine a processing algorithm that would encompass what we see in physics. Or, maybe someone or team is already working on it.
It wouldn’t mean the analogy is correct, but it might lead to further insights.

May 7, 2011 9:33 am

Louis Savain;
The truth is that reasoning has nothing to do with credentials. It has to do with simple logic that everybody can understand. >>>>
Unfortunately sir, some reasoning is rather complex and cannot be reduced to simple logic that everybody can understand. Credentials or no credentials, some problems require genius to understand and solve. It may not require genius to understand their work, but it may require high intelligence and considerable education. What was a difficult (but solvable) problem for Einstein is a work of wonder for some who study for years to understand it and add to it through experimentation or other means, a matter of interest for some who understand it in general and can see the real world results of application of the better understood portions, and some people lack either the education (formal or otherwise) and/or intelligence to understand at all.
Einstein supposedly said everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. Your arguments through out this thread are a classic example of over simplifying by an order of magnitude.
By analogy, almost anyone can be taught how to drive a car. Quite a few people can taught how to fix one. Some people, with the assistance of computers, can design working components for a car. Very very few people actually understand in detail exactly how the explosion of the fuel/air mixture in the combustion chamber works to the point that they can improve upon it.
By your thought process, cars don’t work because you demand a simple explanation for what happens in the combustion chamber, and there just isn’t one. Unfortunately, millions of people who also don’t understand, and couldn’t if they wanted to, get into their cars every day and drive around.

Bart
May 7, 2011 11:31 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 7, 2011 at 5:26 am
“My point is that the expansion speed can exceed light speed as your graph shows.”
Yes, according to current theory, it can. But, that is old news to me. What I am perplexed by is that, I was taught that nothing could be observed beyond the Hubble radius. That’s no problem, as this object falls within the Hubble radius (13.2 Mly versus 13.8 Mly). But, with a Hubble constant of ~71 km/sec/Mpc, that translates to a recession velocity of 0.96 times the speed of light. Yet, the Wikipedia chart I linked to says it should be about 1.3 to 2.3 times the speed of light if the redshift is 10.3.
I’m not sure how this redshift number is being calculated or what it means. Have to go back and brush up on the subject…

Louis Savain
May 7, 2011 11:41 am

davidmhoffer says:
May 7, 2011 at 9:33 am
blah, blah, blah
Time cannot change by definition and nothing can move in spacetime for a very simple logical reason that even school kids can understand. If you don’t get it, don’t blame me. Blame yourself. You are either mentally challenged or you are one of the deceivers. See you around.

Louis Savain
May 7, 2011 11:46 am

anna v says:
May 7, 2011 at 1:34 am
Moderators, please do not let people who do not even know mathematics crowd the place with nonsense. This gentleman Louis Savain does not know simple differential equations, when he claims that dt/dt is constant means that time does not change.
Don’t blame me for your own stupidity. And trying to shut me up is not going to work. I’m planting seeds all over the place and there is nothing you can do about it.
REPLY: Actually yes there is, your behavior is getting out of bounds – so since you said in the previous comment “see you around”, I plan to enforce that stated position of yours, even if you write another whiny blog post about it like you did last time you were snipped by a moderator. – Anthony

Bart
May 7, 2011 12:19 pm

Dan says:
May 7, 2011 at 2:05 am
“These successions will probably be at the same rate everywhere…”
This is very tricky topic. It plays all sorts of havoc with our intuition. Indeed, the first place to start is in defining time. What is time? We tend to think of time as fundamental, as some underlying absolute bedrock of reality. But, it is actually nothing of the sort. It is completely relative. How many clock ticks take place before we perceive we have digested a big meal, for instance? The time we take to digest the meal is relative to the time it takes for the clock to tick N times.
The number of clock ticks needed for us to digest is more or less set, at least locally. If we are near the clock, it will generally require N ticks for us to begin feeling alert and hungry again. But, that does not necessarily mean that a clock somewhere else will tick N times before the clock and our digestive system agree that it is time once again to eat.
It is unfortunate that students are introduced to Special Relativity as depending on relative velocity. It really does not. If, at the moment of creation, two spaceships were brought into being traveling at a constant speed toward one another, then their clocks would run at the same rate, and they would agree on the time since creation when they passed each other. But, in the real world, this relative velocity can only be achieved by one or the other or both objects accelerating away from and then toward one another. Accelerating your spaceship causes your clock to tick slower relative to an identical unaccelerated one. This is how the fabled “Twin Paradox” is resolved. In some sense, you see, accelerating through space builds up a resistance to change in time, relative to how it would have been had we not accelerated. We do not perceive the change locally, in a region which has accelerated with us. But, things have changed, relative to the region we accelerated away from.
And, therein lies the answer to your question:”How would the rocket know when to stop accellerating and instead gain mass?” It gains mass continuously as it accelerates. Its mass is still the same relative to anything which accelerated with it, but it has increased with respect to objects and observers which it left behind. And, all that means is that its trajectory relative to those observers will evolve as though its mass were the greater value.
This reply is getting pretty long-winded. Hopefully, it is of some use to you.

Bart
May 7, 2011 12:25 pm

Bart says:
May 7, 2011 at 11:31 am
13.2 Mly versus 13.8 Mly should have been 13.2 Bly versus 13.8 Bly.

May 7, 2011 12:51 pm

Bart says:
May 7, 2011 at 11:31 am
What I am perplexed by is that, I was taught that nothing could be observed beyond the Hubble radius. That’s no problem, as this object falls within the Hubble radius (13.2 Mly versus 13.8 Mly).
Because of the expansion of space we can actually see out to a distance of more than 40 Gly, because what we now see at 13 Gly was emitted 13 Gyr ago, but is now actually some 40 Gly away.

Vince Causey
May 7, 2011 1:02 pm

Bart,
thank you for taking the time to reply to my comments, as well as many others.
You say that both space and time are warped.
Analogies are often made of warped 2 dimensional space. These can be convex or concave, and result in geometry where the angles of a triangle do not add to 180 degrees, or the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is not pi. However, when you examine these warped planes, the result occurs because the plane is warped into the third dimension. Therefore, if 3d space is warped, it must be warped into a fourth dimension of space. The problem is, in the GR model there are only 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time.
The definitions of space being warped include the fact that the internal angle of a triangle does not add up to 180 degrees. How do you construct such a triangle? By projecting a laser beam. If it was the case that the angles did not add up to 180 degrees, it would be because gravity is bending the light beams. Is it not the case that the bending of light by gravity is being used as a proxy for bending of space? In classical Newtonian physics, the bending of light by gravity would be explained as just that – bending of light by gravity – not as warping of space. Therefore, this warping of space is just a mathematical contrivance to base geometry on the path of a light beam.
In the physical sense, space is not warped because there is no other dimension to warp it into.

Bart
May 7, 2011 1:15 pm

Louis Savain says:
May 7, 2011 at 11:41 am
“Time cannot change by definition.”
I know… don’t feed the troll. But, I just had to chuckle at this. It reminded me of Gavin Schmidt opining on the appropriateness of global average temperature as a metric for climate change, saying ‘“Climate sensitivity” is *defined* as being the equilibrium response of the global mean surface temperature to a change in radiative forcing while holding a number of things constant…’
Science is so much easier if you can just force Nature to obey your dictates via definitional fiat.

Bart
May 7, 2011 1:23 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 7, 2011 at 12:51 pm
“Because of the expansion of space we can actually see out to a distance of more than 40 Gly, because what we now see at 13 Gly was emitted 13 Gyr ago, but is now actually some 40 Gly away.”
We cannot “see” something until the light gets here. But, I see your point. So. 0.96c*40/13 = 2.9c, which is consistent with the chart and a redshift of 10.3. But, that is an anticipatory redshift. Weird, but perhaps that is what is meant.

May 7, 2011 1:51 pm

Bart says:
May 7, 2011 at 1:23 pm
We cannot “see” something until the light gets here.
One more time: what is now at 40 Gly we see because its light was emitted 13 Gyr ago and thus has ‘just’ got here.

Bart
May 7, 2011 1:55 pm

Vince Causey says:
May 7, 2011 at 1:02 pm
“In the physical sense, space is not warped because there is no other dimension to warp it into.”
This was the genius of Riemann, who freed differential geometry from the confines of embedded manifolds and allowed them to be generalized into the abstract. You do not have to have another dimension to warp it into.
Here’s an analogous situation that might resonate. Consider a two dimensional surface embedded in 3-d space. Suppose you are a two dimensional being living in a seemingly infinite plane. The plane is spinning about its center of mass in 3-d space, but you don’t know that, because all you can perceive lies in the plane. All you know is that, when you are at a particular spot, you feel no force against you. But, when you move away from it, you are pushed farther away from it, and pushed harder the farther you go. To you, your space is warped, and wants to channel you in a particular direction (away from the spot).

don penman
May 7, 2011 2:00 pm

I can’t visualise empty space being warped or bent because I don’t think it has that property ,force will pass through empty space without affecting anything.Empty space is just empty space,I can’t visualise empty space bending and causing light and matter to follow a bent path even if that is true.

Bart
May 7, 2011 2:18 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 7, 2011 at 1:51 pm
“One more time: what is now at 40 Gly we see because its light was emitted 13 Gyr ago and thus has ‘just’ got here.”
One more time: We cannot “see” something until the light gets here. The light traveled 13.2 Bly, not 40 Bly. It left the object 13.2 Byr ago.

Bart
May 7, 2011 2:54 pm

I accept your explanation, Lief, that the Wikipedia chart is based on redshift observed from an object which was then at 13.2 Bly receding at sub-light speed versus recessional velocity now when the object has moved on to ~ 40 Bly. It just seems an odd hybrid convention to me to plot it in that way, and I wish the article had explained it.

May 7, 2011 3:23 pm

Bart says:
May 7, 2011 at 2:18 pm
One more time: We cannot “see” something until the light gets here. The light traveled 13.2 Bly, not 40 Bly. It left the object 13.2 Byr ago.
One last time: the light is here from an object that now is 40 Glyrs away.

Louis Savain
May 7, 2011 4:08 pm

[snip] …The truth hurts doesn’t it, Anthony? But you can’t shut me up… [snip]
[Reply: No one is shutting you up, this is America. But if you want to say your piece here, you need to be a little less cranky. Posting on WUWT is a privilege, not a right. ~db stealey, mod.]

Myrrh
May 7, 2011 4:20 pm

Vince Causey says:
May 6, 2011 at 5:46 am
You have articulated a question that I have often thought about. For what it’s worth, here’s my take on the warping of spacetime.
As I understand it – 3d space is not warped – that wouldn’t make sense.

Thanks for coming in here.
The presence of matter makes time run slower and therefore what is being warped is time. You have to think of 4d space-time that is being warped, and the warping is because of the time dimension, not the 3 spatial dimensions. A particle curves towards the Earth because time is running more slowly closer to the Earth. It is a rule of GR that a particle will move from one place to another so that a clock carried on it will show a longer time than it would on any other trajectory. This is a reason why the particle moves towards the Earth. If it didn’t do so, its clock would show a shorter time. From the framework of 4d spacetime, we say that the particle is following the shortest distance in spacetime – ie, a straight line through spacetime – and in doing so the particle moves in a curve through space, but the space itself isn’t warped.
Sorry, just to get this clear re time: “It is a rule of GR that a particle will move from one place to another so that a clock carried on it will show a longer time than it would on any other trajectory. This is the reason why the particle moves towards the Earth. If it didn’t do so, its clock would show a shorter time.
Could you elaborate please, I think you may be talking in a form of shorthand and I’m not getting the references. What do you mean by another trajectory? Is the first, the longer time, a set amount in space from say one planet to another? And the ‘any other trajectory’ just it travelling through space but not towards anything?
From the framework of 4d spacetime, we say that the particle is following the shortest distance in spacetime – ie, a straight line through spacetime – and in doing so the particle moves in a curve through space, but the space itself isn’t warped.
This is the when the particle gets to point B? So you’re saying it’s not the space which is creating the curved path, but the attraction somehow of matter which then slows down the time as the matter’s attraction brings it into a curve around it?
If I’ve understood that correctly. I think that’s still not time that is being warped, but only the speed of the particle.
Actually no, I don’t understand the first part. Do you mean re from one location to another, because it is moving the clock is slower? So if a clock is not in Earth’s gravitational field and not moving it is then faster?
The time link posted above: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
“(GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth.”
That’s still just a function of matters’ attraction/distance isn’t it? It’s a heavier body slowing down another lighter something. It’s not really altering time itself, only the speed the lighter something is moving in a space. I don’t see how that is any different from the boiling point of water, say, altering at different heights. ‘Apparently’ not cancelling out above sea level a clock on a moving plane ‘will appear’ to tick slower, but the less gravity at the height wins out and it ticks faster..
It’s the ‘appears’ which is amiss here, I think. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the demonstration of the ‘shrinking and growing Alice’, don’t know the official title, but – a viewer outside of a room has an oblong window to look through into the room, but the field of vision is restricted, he can see the ceiling and the floor of the wall opposite him which he can see from corner to corner. He sees a person in one corner normal size to the room; that person moves along the wall to the opposite corner of the same wall – and while doing so begins to grow bigger and bigger until he is squashed as his head reaches the ceiling. Even when it is explained, how this effect is achieved, one’s mind just cannot stop seeing the same effect, because it so ingrained as a learned response to the outside world, (the floor rises from one corner to the next, so the person growing is actually walking up an incline, but we still see parallel ceiling to floor), that the mind still continues to interpret it exactly as it is seeing it even though it at the same time understands what is really happening. In other words, you can’t stop seeing the man grow until he has to bend his head at the ceiling, because our learned interpretation of the world around us is that ceilings and floors are in a particular relationship to each other. Some many years ago there was a study on perception in a wild and wooly tribe somewhere in Africa. These people did not have any learned perception of square houses, they couldn’t see them. They too could be taught that a square house was a square and not a circle, but even understanding that, they still saw a round house. Perception is a learned response in childhood. All this to say, that ‘apparently’, those long haul boring plane rides must have the same effect as heavier matter/strong gravity, it completely overrides and reverses the effect of time apparently speeding up the higher one gets away from a strong gravity at sea level..

Myrrh
May 7, 2011 4:45 pm

William Mason says:
May 6, 2011 at 9:45 am
I don’t think the picture is meant to be taken literally. It is drawn that way because if you draw every possible angle in 3d you would just see a sphere of ink. It is drawn in the two dimensions so you can see the shape and once understanding the concept use your mind to apply it to the 3rd dimension.
Which I did, and I got much the same result as you get, a sphere of ink.. The only difference is you’re rejecting what you’re seeing. The picture says it’s a four dimensional representation! It doesn’t even make sense in 3.
Imagine you’re jumping on a trampoline, now extend that trampoline to be a complete sphere around you and keep jumping around making big dents in the thing. The claim is that the Earth is not jumping from one point to another, but it is impinging equally on every point of the space around it. These must either cancel each other out if the Earth is truly impinging on the trampoline/stuff/inside of balloon/honey/space around it, or, it isn’t impinging at all as that diagram purports to show.
The Earth is not two dimensional, it is 3D. If, it is impinging on it’s surroundings as in the diagram then that has to extrapolated to 3D, where each of the points on the 3D Earth must impinge massively into the surrounding equally in 3D space.

May 7, 2011 4:53 pm

Myrrh says:
May 7, 2011 at 4:20 pm
As I understand it – 3d space is not warped – that wouldn’t make sense.
You cannot separate space from time. there is only spacetime.
“(GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth.”
and this is simply not true. See e.g. here: http://www.exo.net/~pauld/physics/relativity/relativitytimefly.htm

Myrrh
May 7, 2011 5:19 pm

Bart says:
May 6, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Re my: “If the mass of the Earth is warping space around it which is what is then pulling in stuff which is gravity, it can only be doing this exactly as in the diagram, on a plane. It cannot be extrapolated to three dimensions.”
Why not?
Because it has to be equally so all the way around. Which leaves no dips.
Re my: “I’m saying that can only be two dimensional, (exactly as in the diagram), because a mass will impinge itself in all directions equally, (if such a thing was happening), cancelling out all the individual impinging on all the points touching the surrounding space, in a three dimensional space.”
You need to integrate the pull over the entire mass. Gravity surrounding a spherical mass behaves externally just as though the mass were concentrated at a single point in the center.
How does it get to behave like that by the depicted scenario extrapolated to 3D?
If, the Earth is really creating such a great dent in the space around it by its mass, if it is doing so it must be equally on every point of its sphere, then there should be a layer of thick honey equally all around the Earth in a band all around at every point. The Earth the yolk of an egg, and the thick layer of stuff space/time its mass is squashing in all directions, the shell around the yolk. Is there?

May 7, 2011 5:25 pm

Myrrh says:
May 7, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Earth must impinge massively into the surrounding equally in 3D space.
What happens is that the volume of the space inscribed by the 3D sphere is different from what you calculate for a flat space: 4pi/3*Radius^3.

Louis Savain
May 7, 2011 5:32 pm

Louis Savain says:
May 7, 2011 at 4:08 pm
[snip] …The truth hurts doesn’t it, Anthony? But you can’t shut me up… [snip]
[Reply: No one is shutting you up, this is America. But if you want to say your piece here, you need to be a little less cranky. Posting on WUWT is a privilege, not a right. ~db stealey, mod.]

ahahaha…
Stealy, you can kiss my you know what. WUWT commenters are calling me “troll”, “stupid” and insulting me left and right while you moderators self-righteously look the other way. And then you have the nerve to accuse me of being cranky? And all because I criticize your little god, Einstein?
And what’s up with the privilege crap? You think I need to post anything on this blog? I got news for you: you don’t put food on my table. You should all be grateful to me because I taught you something that you did not know. I did you a favor by spilling the beans on the silliness and illogic of Einstein’s spacetime on this blog. I am not the one who is privileged here. You are. You are all a bunch of ingrates and ignoramuses. You don’t deserve my good graces. Ya’ll can eat shit.
PS. I dare you to publish this with no deletions, you gutless cowards. 😀
REPLY: Oh I’ll publish it, to demonstrate the sort of person you are. But it will in fact be the last comment from you here as you’ve now violated site policy. Banned. – Anthony

May 7, 2011 5:36 pm

Myrrh says:
May 7, 2011 at 5:19 pm
because a mass will impinge itself in all directions equally
You seem to be hung up on the ‘impinging in all directions equally’. Perhaps look at this way: the impinging from all directions is stronger the closer to the mass you are than it would be if it were not for GR. In this case you can get out from under the ‘all directions equally’ fixation.

May 7, 2011 6:00 pm

Myrrh says:
May 7, 2011 at 5:19 pm
because a mass will impinge itself in all directions equally
Perhaps this set of lectures will help:
http://asterisk.apod.com/viewforum.php?f=39
Especially the lecture on curved spaces

u.k.(us)
May 7, 2011 6:03 pm

Louis Savain says:
May 7, 2011 at 5:32 pm
=====
We are having a discussion here, opposing opinions are encouraged, the participants of the debate rarely resort to such vile verbiage, it shows bad manners.
(and, it is an admission that they lost the argument).

Editor
May 7, 2011 6:20 pm

Louis Savain says: “Ya’ll can eat…”
Coprophagia is how animals keep their dens clean and reduce smells that attract preditors.

Myrrh
May 7, 2011 6:30 pm

Leif says May 7, 2011 at 4:53 pm
You cannot separate space from time. There is only spacetime.
There is only stuff. You can call it what you like, but that it’s “spacetime” is unproven.
Re the “GR predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. SR predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth.” from the http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
and this is simply not true. See e.g. here:
http://www.exo.net/~pauld/physics/relativity/relativitytimefly.htm

What is simply not true? I’ve read through your link, well, it’s late so maybe not so thoroughly as I should, but I can’t find what your link is saying that’s particularly different. The link I referred to was posted by PaulH I think, and I thought a very good explanation, and it appears to me, to be a better level of explanation than your link. But, anyway, please be more specific in what you’re disagreeing with, and please quote what it is that says this isn’t true from your link. Ta.
Leif says later at 5:25 pm
Re my: “Earth must impinge massively into the surrounding equally in 3D space.”
What happens is that the volume of the space inscribed by the 3D sphere is different from what you calculate for a flat space: 4pi/3*Radius^3.
I don’t know whether I’ve mentioned this specifically to you in our various exchanges, but I don’t have the maths language.. Please explain that in English if you’re making some point here.
“Inscribed” I do understand, but looked it up for geometry.. So how is that for the boundary of the Earth including boundary to this alleged eggshell of squashed space/time all around it, and then including the thickness of the squashed space/time?

Myrrh
May 7, 2011 6:57 pm

Leif says: May 7, at 5:36 pm
Re my: “because a mass will impinge itself in all directions equally”
You seem to be hung up on the ‘impinging in all directions equally’. Perhaps look at this way: the impinging from all directions is stronger the closer to the mass you are than it would be if it were not for GR. In this case you can get out from under the ‘all directions equally’ fixation.
I said, “if such a thing were happening”. If you’d bother to read my post for context you’d have got that, I’ve been saying it all the way through this. The impinging in all directions equally comes from extrapolating the concept as depicted in the diagram into 3 dimensions.
Your “impinging in all directions is greater the closer to the mass you are” means what here? The alleged ‘space/time’ is immediate all around the greater mass, and the greater mass is impinging into it enough you say to alter by dramatically bending it out of shape deeply enough to create gravity.

May 7, 2011 7:08 pm

Myrrh says:
May 7, 2011 at 6:30 pm
There is only stuff. You can call it what you like, but that it’s “spacetime” is unproven.
The stuff there is is called spacetime and have the properties specified by the special theory of relativity: that two observers moving relative to each other will disagree on the space between two event and on the timing of the events. They will, however, agree on the distance between the two events in spacetime. This is a fact. If you cannot stomach that the discussion is dead to begin with.
What is simply not true?
That the two effect cancel out exactly.
please be more specific in what you’re disagreeing with, and please quote what it is that says this isn’t true from your link. Ta.
Simply flying clocks around the Earth shows the effects do not cancel out.
Please explain that in English if you’re making some point here.
That the ‘impinging’ [which I don’t quite know what you think is] being the same from all directions is relevant. Space is simply curved equally in all directions around a mass.
So how is that for the boundary of the Earth including boundary to this alleged eggshell of squashed space/time all around it, and then including the thickness of the squashed space/time?
Not sure what you mean, but the shell can be thought of as being infinitely thin and there being infinitely many of them. The curvature of spacetime gets larger and larger the closer to the mass you are in all directions equally. In Newton’s world there is no curvature, but a mysterious force called gravity reaches out through space instantly and works at a distance [any distance from here to infinity] without any coupling, mechanism, or actor. In Einstein’s [and our] world there is no such force and no mechanism is needed. Mass just determines the curvature of spacetime locally. BTW, on very large scales [greater than galaxies] spacetime is flat [observations show this].

May 7, 2011 7:17 pm

Myrrh says:
May 7, 2011 at 6:57 pm
the greater mass is impinging into it enough you say to alter by dramatically bending it out of shape deeply enough to create gravity.
Yes, perhaps this is the way you could understand this. Mass bends [curves] spacetime to create [the illusion of a force of] gravity. As simple as that. Sometimes, people have the hardest time understanding very simple things. Einstein fought against that attitude all this life. Only after his death was general relativity serious physics. He didn’t even get the Nobel Prize for GR.

Bart
May 7, 2011 8:10 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 7, 2011 at 3:23 pm
One last time: the light never traveled 40 Bly to reach us &_&.
Myrrh says:
May 7, 2011 at 4:20 pm
“The presence of matter makes time run slower and therefore what is being warped is time.”
Both space and time are warped about a massive object. Overall, I think a large part of the problem you are having is semantic. What do you think it means, for space and time to be “warped”? All it means is time and the dimensions of space do not maintain the same relationship to one another which they would in the absence of a massive body nearby. Which means that bodies move differently, and processes occur at different rates relative to others, than they normally would.
Louis Savain says:
May 7, 2011 at 5:32 pm
You can’t respond, but you can read. Maybe it would help your case if you could show how to design a Doppler radar, or get consistent measurements from a GPS satellite, WITHOUT using Relativity. When you are able to do so, give us a call. In the meantime, these and other properties explained by the theory can be put to many good uses.
In a way, your task is only half as difficult as it appears. Whatever you might come up with, it must have the same form as the equations derived from relativistic principles, because these have been verified repeatedly to exacting accuracies. You just have to come up with another explanation for how they come about.

May 7, 2011 9:01 pm

Bart says:
May 7, 2011 at 8:10 pm
One last time: the light never traveled 40 Bly to reach us &_&.
Nobody is saying that. I’m saying that we are seeing [just took a photograph of it] a galaxy that is now 40 Gly away, so we can obviously see that far.

Bart
May 8, 2011 12:12 am

Leif – But, what we are “seeing” is not the galaxy now at 40 Bly, it is the galaxy then (13.2 Byr ago at 13.2 Bly), so we are not seeing a galaxy 40 Bly away, any more than I have seen the men and women who grew up from the boys and girls I knew in grade school, but with whom I lost touch along the way.
This discussion is a little vexing to me because it’s not what I am interested in. It appears we are asking different questions. This is mine: The article says the distance to the galaxy at the time the photons which have been collected were released is 13.2 Bly. At that time, Hubble’s relation tells me the object was receding at 0.96c. The graph at Wikipedia says that would produce a redshift of roughly unity. However, the article says the redshift is more like 10, which the graph says corresponds to a velocity of around 2c.
OK. So, my question is, did they actually measure a redshift of about 1 and extrapolate that to a redshift of about 10 for photons emitted but not yet observed based on where the object is now, or did they actually measure a redshift of 10 and the Wiki graph is plotting velocity now versus redshift of a photon emitted then? Either way, it is confusing, though conventions often can be until you get used to them.
My GR training ended after the standard three elementary solutions for the metric external to a massive body (Schwarzschild, Reissner-Nordstrom, Kerr), and a very brief overview of cosmology, so I do not know the conventions someone in the field would use, or what a typical redshift is versus distance to the source.

May 8, 2011 1:51 am

Bart says:
May 8, 2011 at 12:12 am
what we are “seeing” is not the galaxy now at 40 Bly, it is the galaxy then (13.2 Byr ago at 13.2 Bly), so we are not seeing a galaxy 40 Bly away
We are seeing a galaxy that now is 40 Gly away.
The article says the distance to the galaxy at the time the photons which have been collected were released is 13.2 Bly. At that time, Hubble’s relation tells me the object was receding at 0.96c.
Perhaps you are confusing light years and parsecs….
did they actually measure a redshift of 10
The measured redshift is ~10.

Jim Masterson
May 8, 2011 8:22 am

>>
Bart says:
May 6, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Jim Masterson says:
May 5, 2011 at 1:23 am
“It’s harder to show mathematically, but a ring can’t orbit around a star either (as in Ringworld).”
But, it can remain steadily oriented in space through gyroscopic stiffness, and its CG will move approximately with the Star’s CG. Some stationkeeping may be needed to deal with stray forces which act differently on the Star and the ring.
<<
We’re talking about a structure (made of metal? silicon? Niven, of course, made up some fantasy-super-strong material to build the ring with.) that is two astronomical units across and about a million miles wide. I doubt seriously that such a structure would be rigid enough to rotate with “gyroscopic stiffness.” The “station-keeping” would be quite a feat by itself.
But let’s do some calculations. The Earth must travel fast enough to orbit the Sun in one year. (We can assume the orbit is circular to simplify the calculation.) This gives us an average orbital speed of 2*pi*AU/year-in-seconds = 29.79 km/sec.
To compare, the escape velocity from the Earth is 25,000 miles/hour or 11.2 km/sec. So the Earth is orbiting the Sun at more than 2.5 times the fastest speed that man has yet traveled (escape velocity was required to reach the Moon).
Ringworld rotated fast enough to create about 1 g. Let’s try to calculate that. Centripetal acceleration is: a = v^2/r where a is 1 g or 9.8 m/sec^2 and r is 1 AU or 149,597,870.691 km. Solving for v we get 1210.8 km/sec. This is about 40 times the velocity required to counteract the Sun’s gravitational force. The ring would make one rotation in about 9 days. I doubt that such a structure could withstand the centrifugal force and would fly apart.
Jim

Myrrh
May 8, 2011 10:39 am

Leif says:
May 7, 2011 at 7:08
Re my: “There is only stuff. You can call it what you like, but that it’s “spacetime” is unproven.”
The stuff there is called spacetime and have the properties specified by the special theory of relativity: that two observers moving relative to each other will disagree on the space between two events and on the timing of the events. They will, however, agree on the distance between the two events in spacetime. This is a fact. If you cannot stomach that the discussion is dead to begin with.
What you’re not dealing with here is that “spacetime” is still unproven. These things may well happen, I don’t have the time to go into more complicated effects witnessed in our world, but you still haven’t proved that it is your “spacetime” that is doing this, that it even exists, that the method claimed is warping it is even possible!
So, as I originally asked, first prove that such a warping exists of the space around the Earth, is even possible, in 3D, before invoking time.
There is nothing in that diagram that shows Time being warped or that it is even involved. Claiming it is a representation of 4 dimensions is nonsense. It represents a claimed scenario in simple 3D, of the body with mass affecting the space around it.
From now on I shall try to remember to refer to this space stuff as honey stuff or space honey, to root it firmly into the 3D problem that this diagram is actually representing and rooting it firmly into the description of it from the experimenters. When I forget I’ll revert to space or stuff.
Re my: “What is simply not true?”
that the two effects cancel out exactly.
Still can’t find it. Please point it out.
Re my: “please be more specific in what you’re disagreeing with, and please quote what it is that says this isn’t true from you link. Ta.”
Simply flying clocks around the Earth shows the effects do not cancel out.
Still can’t find it saying that. It does however say that it is not dealing with General Relativity on that web page – are you confusing this because you haven’t taken that into account?
Re my “Please explain that in English if you’re making some point here.”
That the ‘impinging’ [which I don’t quite know what you think is] being the same from all directions is relevant. Space is simply curved equally in all directions around a mass.
The impinging as in the diagram. That the mass of the Earth is sinking into the honey space is it impinging on it. As the general description of this gives it, take a rubber sheet and put a heavy round ball in the middle of it, and the weight of the ball distorts the rubber sheet – it impinges on it, impacts upon it. (COD) impinge – v.t. and t. (Cause to) make impact (on, upon); hence ~ment n.
Re my: “So how is that for the boundary of the Earth including boundary to this alledged eggshell of squashed space/time all around it, and then including the thickness of the squashed space/time?”
Not sure what you mean, but the shell can be thought of as being infinitely thin and there being infinitely many of them. The curvature of spacetime gets larger and larger the closer to the mass you are in all directions equally.
[So you agree that it is equally in all directions, therefore making it a simple 3D model as the diagram is extrapolated all around equally.] By the shell I mean at the deepest point of each impingement/impact of the heavy body into the spacehoney surrounding it, which then extrapolated all around the body equally would create a shell around it, the edge between the unwarped honeyspace and the warped at every point of the deepest effect of the mass impacting/impinging on it. As in the diagram. Because the Earth is distorting a something there is a squashed area at the deepest point beyond which the distortion doesn’t go, while the honeyspace around that point is slipping around the weight distorting it into less curvature. The Earth then has this shell of more compacted honeyspace directly at each point as the mass impacts it.
Which is what you are also saying in the “the shell can be thought of … there being infinitely many of them, and “the curvature of spacetime gets larger and larger the closer to the mass you are in all directions equally”.
So, the further away the more honeyspace’s distortion becomes less, the curvature straightening out until it is just honeyspace undistorted by the mass of the body. By boundaries I mean the beginning of the outside edge point which is the shell at the last moment of greatest distortion into the honey space, to when the weight/mass of the body is no longer capable of distorting it and it reverts to undistorted; the beginning and end of the shell which is the amount of the distortion the body creates by its impact at its deepest effect. In the diagram the beginning of the space between the earth and the furthest point of the reach of its effect on the space honey it is distorting. So, the Earth is completely enclosed by this shell, there is no more opening on the other side of Earth to the point at which its mass is distorting the space on its opposite point. No open curvature spiralling in anywhere on the shell to capture anything supposedly travelling in a straight line and claiming this is gravity. It has all been cancelled out. Even if you could show that this was a one way street and the honey stuff was merely being acted on and not also acting on the body distorting it, there is no warp. There’s nothing happening from the distortion created by the mass because it’s the same all the way around.
So, what we’re left with is the normal 3D effect of a body suspended in a fluid.
And all the experimenters have found, is that the spin of the Earth is moving this fluid space honey.
Now, if you want a vortex out of that then perhaps you should look to the movement of fluids on Earth. Down the plug hole with different spins in each hemisphere. So not some mythical “space/time” invisibly channeling in something travelling in a straight line which just happens to get caught at the top of a helterskelter, but the Earth extending its reach into the honey stuff all around it and sucking that in, taking with it whatever has been caught in the fluid… Where’s it all going?! Hmm, the Earth must be recycling it somehow. Earth is the Honey Monster..
Anyway, the Earth is also moving as well as spinning, and at the boundary layer of a body moving fast in a fluid we have well understood science too: http://hkprogolf.com/dimples.html
[Air is a gas, Air and Water are fluids.]
From which about a golf ball travelling at around 120 miles an hour:

Think about this: when a ball falls in a water hazard, it gets wet, right? So, when a ball is streaming through the air, it gets wet with air. We say it has a “wetted surface.”
Because air is sticking to the surface it streams over, it makes sense that the less area you have on a ball, the less sticking you’d get and the less drag you’d have to overcome. So, you might think that a very smooth, air-hardly-sticks-to-it-at-all coating on a polished sphere would travel farther down range than a ball with a roughened up lemon or lime skin surface. But, at the airspeeds that golf balls go, it doesn’t quite work that way.
Imagine yourself as a tiny entity, smaller than a gnat, perhaps the size of a micro crustacean — so small you could fit between grains of sand on a beach. Now imagine riding on the surface of a golf ball in flight, or in the wind tunnel at the lab. You realize that right at the surface of the ball, the air is still and i sticks to the plastic as the air molecules are dragged along like syrup running from the rim on a little pitcher at a popular pancake place.
But as you swim up away from the surface, say as far as the thickness of three sheets of paper, you notice that the air is going full speed. You’re in, what we in golf science call, the “free stream” which moves at 200kph. .. Anyway, the air streaming over a golf ball forms a “boundary layer” of relatively slow moving air. It’s distinct. Right at the surface, the air is stuck. A millimeter away from the surface, the air is going full blast. In between — in the boundary layer — it’s just slurping along.
So here’s the deal. That slow moving air in the boundary layer is a drag. Uh, I mean, it’s a source of drag. It lets the air stick to the surface and tumble behind the ball in wild whipping whirlpools.

So, at the surface of the Earth moving around the Sun in a fluid honey space stuff which you call space/time, the fluid space is still, and in the boundary layer it is just slurping along creating wild whipping whirlpools as the fluid space tumbles behind the speeding Earth, and just above that, the fluid space is rushing past the much slower moving slurpy honey stuff.
So, the spinning Earth in the fluid space stuff around it like a golf ball with a spin on it travelling at speed through the fluid gas Air. We know the effects of this, as described above and continued on that page. Normal Science can work out the drag, the low pressure formed behind the Earth taking into account its speed and size and so on.
Your scenario, of a static bending of space stuff around the Earth, has no means of capturing anything because all it creates is a closed boundary layer, of a ball suspended in a bath of water. Not even taking into account that such a ball is also being acted upon by the water surrounding it.
Your scenario is incapable of explaining 3D space around it, and yet you claim this also includes Time…
And lastly, from http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6077410/Gravitational_field

Generally accepted fundamental hypothesis
Dr. Jesse L. Greenstein of the California Institute of Technology wrote:
“The detection of gravitational waves bears directly on the question of whether there is any such thing as a “gravitational field”, which can act as an independent entity. ..this fundamental field hypthesis has been generally accepted without observational support. Such credulity among scientists occurs only in relation to the deepest and most fundamental hypotheses for which they lack the facility to think differently in a comparably detailed and consistent way. In the nineteenth century a similar attitude led to a general acceptance of the ether..”

Hmm, seems to me that ‘the ether’ is just what this honey is, and the Earth moving in it and spinning it around fully capable of being explained by bog standard science of 3D reality as the golf ball is explained.
Does this experiment then, prove the Ether theory?

May 8, 2011 11:10 am

Myrrh says:
May 8, 2011 at 10:39 am
Dealing with here is that “spacetime” is still unproven. These things may well happen, I don’t have the time to go into more complicated effects witnessed in our world, but you still haven’t proved that it is your “spacetime” that is doing this, that it even exists, that the method claimed is warping it is even possible!
All my links have not had any effect, it seems. Spacetime is one of the best supported fact of all of science.
It represents a claimed scenario in simple 3D, of the body with mass affecting the space around it.
spacetime is curved.
Re my: “What is simply not true?”
that the two effects cancel out exactly.
Still can’t find it. Please point it out.

Myrrh says:
May 7, 2011 at 4:20 pm
“Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth.”
and this is simply not true.
Because the Earth is distorting a something there is a squashed area at the deepest point
Not a squashed area, but a squashed spacetime
And all the experimenters have found, is that the spin of the Earth is moving this fluid space honey.
Not only that, but also that the dragging is just what is predicted from GR’s warping of spacetime.
we have well understood science too: http://hkprogolf.com/dimples.html
Relativity is very well understood science, and has survived every experimental test it has been carried out over the last 100 years.
[Air is a gas, Air and Water are fluids.]
From which about a golf ball travelling at around 120 miles an hour:
So, the spinning Earth in the fluid space stuff around it like a golf ball with a spin on it travelling at speed through the fluid gas Air. We know the effects of this, as described above and continued on that page. Normal Science can work out the drag, the low pressure formed behind the Earth taking into account its speed and size and so on.
Relativity is Normal Science and does indeed account [quantitatively] for the observed effects.
“The detection of gravitational waves bears directly on the question of whether there is any such thing as a “gravitational field”, which can act as an independent entity. ..this fundamental field hypthesis has been generally accepted without observational support. Such credulity among scientists occurs only in relation to the deepest and most fundamental hypotheses for which they lack the facility to think differently in a comparably detailed and consistent way. In the nineteenth century a similar attitude led to a general acceptance of the ether..”
The pulses from binary pulsars are slowed down by their issuance of gravitational waves, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave Detectors are being constructed both on Earth and in Space and we are approaching the sensitivity needed to detect the waves directly.
Does this experiment then, prove the Ether theory?
In a sense, yes. In another sense, no [not the classical Ether theory]: http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/PIRTVol1.htm

Myrrh
May 8, 2011 11:11 am

Bart says:
May 7, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Myrrh says: May 7, 2011 at 4:20 pm
“The presence of matter makes time run slower and therefore what is being warped is time.”

Not me, I was quoting Vince Causey, who first said that he agrees it is not space being warped, but thinks matter is warping time (so the discussion on moving objects apparently slowing down time etc.
So to Vince’s statement thinking it mine you reply:
Both space and time are warped about a massive object. Overall, I think a large part of the problem you are having is semantic. What do you think it means for space and time to “warped”? All it means is time and the dimensions of space do not maintain the same relationship to one another which they would in the absence of a massive body nearby. Which means that bodies move differently, and processes occur at different rates relative to others, than they normally would.
What I mean by space and time to be “warped” is exactly as it is presented by you, generic, in the diagram which begins this discussion. That is what I am describing and commenting on.
The rest of your paragraph continuing “All it means..”, is hypothetical. I’m saying that you can’t even make that diagram work in 3D reality, so how the heck do you think you can establish that any kind of difference exists between your hypothetical measurements invoking Time relating to Space with a massive body nearby when your concept of Time and Space without a massive body nearby isn’t proven to exist and when your concept of a massive body distorting ‘space/time’ all around it creates a simple ball suspended in a bath of still water, at best?
See my last post to Leif.

Bart
May 8, 2011 11:28 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 8, 2011 at 1:51 am
“We are seeing a galaxy that now is 40 Gly away.”
I’m going to leave this alone, because the horse is long dead.
“Perhaps you are confusing light years and parsecs….”
Actually, recessional velocity must have been sub-light at that time because it is below the Hubble radius of 13.8 Bly and, otherwise, the light would not have gotten to us. But, the calculation is simple enough. Hubble’s constant is about 71 km/sec/Mpc. A parsec is 3.26 ly. Speed of light is 300e3 km/sec. Recessional velocity is (was) 71*13.2e9/3.26e6/300e3 c = 0.96c.
“The measured redshift is ~10.”
In that case, barring any additional information, I assume the Wiki graph is plotting velocity now versus redshift of a photon emitted then. That’s fine. It’s just a convention. But, I wish they had made it clear in presenting the graph.
Jim Masterson says:
May 8, 2011 at 8:22 am
“I doubt that such a structure could withstand the centrifugal force and would fly apart.”
I think you need to give this some more thought. Centrifugal “force” is mass times centripetal acceleration. How difficult is it to find materials which will stand up to that kind of g-load?

Bart
May 8, 2011 11:42 am

Myrrh says:
May 8, 2011 at 10:39 am
“There is nothing in that diagram that shows Time being warped or that it is even involved. Claiming it is a representation of 4 dimensions is nonsense. It represents a claimed scenario in simple 3D, of the body with mass affecting the space around it.”
It is NOT a representation, it is an analogy. It does not represent anything in 3D. It represents something in 2D which is analogous to the situation in 4D. You are taking this analogy WAY too literally.
“What you’re not dealing with here is that “spacetime” is still unproven.”
It gives us results which are replicable and repeatable in the real world, and allow us to design neat stuff like Doppler radar and GPS systems. If you don’t like it, that’s your personal preference. But, it’s not going to stop the rest of us from exploiting its predictions.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 8, 2011 at 11:10 am
“Re my: “What is simply not true?”
that the two effects cancel out exactly.
Still can’t find it. Please point it out.
Myrrh says:
May 7, 2011 at 4:20 pm
“Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth.”
and this is simply not true.”

The claim in Myrrh’s reference was not anything as general as he thinks or you have accepted. It is making a very narrow claim, which is this: time runs slower at the poles of the Earth than it does at the equator due to the fact that the radius of the Earth is smaller there (GR effect). But, it runs slower at the equator than it does at the poles because of the velocity of a point on the equator is greater than the velocity of a point at either pole (SR effect). It is claimed that the two effects roughly cancel each other out. Maybe so – I have not done the calculation though, and am not endorsing it until I have.
Myrrh says:
May 8, 2011 at 11:11 am
“What I mean by space and time to be “warped” is exactly as it is presented by you, generic, in the diagram which begins this discussion. That is what I am describing and commenting on.”
Stop. Please, stop. It is an analogy which has failed to give you the desired insight. It is not IN ANY WAY a rigorous explanation of what is happening in 4D spacetime.

Bart
May 8, 2011 11:51 am

Bart says:
May 8, 2011 at 11:42 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 8, 2011 at 11:10 am
Let me make this a little clearer…
“It is claimed that the two effects roughly cancel each other out over the oblate spheroid of the Earth regardless of latitude. The slower the time from GR, the faster from SR in roughly equal measure and vice versa.

Bart
May 8, 2011 11:56 am

Bart says:
May 8, 2011 at 11:51 am
Bart says:
May 8, 2011 at 11:42 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 8, 2011 at 11:10 am
Let me make this even more clear…
The point is that time is roughly uniform in rate over the surface of the Earth. It says nothing about the rate of time on the surface of the Earth versus anywhere else.

Myrrh
May 8, 2011 3:13 pm

I’ll reply to Leif and Bart tomorrow. Meanwhile, for our delectation or consternation depending on one’s view, it’s all relative ain’t it, something I’ve just found while reading this site’s pages:
http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime4.html

..A generation of physicists since Einstein have thought about these questions, and they are part of the reason what makes Gravity Probe B so important, not just as another test of general relativity, but as a source of new insights about spacetime itself. Nobel laureate C.N. Yang wrote in a letter to NASA Adminstrator James M. Beggs in 1983 that general relativity, “though profoundly beautiful, is likely to be amended … whatever [the] new geometrical symmetry will be, it is likely to entangle with spin and rotation, which are related to a deep geometrical concept called torsion … The proposed Stanford experiment [Gravity Probe B] is especially interesting since it focuses on the spin. I would not be surprised at all if it gives a result in disagreeement with Einstein’s theory.”

As several have mentioned and in several different ways, the experiment’s claim to have proved two of Einstein’s theories has had to be tortured out of the data gathered and even that not done very well..
Why not just admit it? There’s nothing here, after 52 years of experimental data collection, that can’t be explained in bog standard 3D movement of bodies in a fluid, curvature included.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime3.html

Thirdly, existing tests of general relativity have been restricted to weak gravitational fields (or moderate ones in the case of the binary pulsar). Major surprises in this regime would have been surprising, since Einstein’s theory goes over to Newton’s in the weak-field limit, and we know that Newtonian gravity works reasonably well. But surprises are quite possible, and even likely, in the strong-field regime. The reason why is closely related to the fourth motivation for continuing to test Einstein’s theory: general relativity as it stands is incompatible with the rest of physics (i.e. the “standard model” based on quantum field theory). etc.

And doesn’t make any sense elsewhere in science knowledge.
Savin was right istm, what has been happening is that the equations work where they do because they revert back to Newton or other known effects, that is, can be explained otherwise than by the claim that it is this entity ‘spacetime’ being warped by matter as the cause of ‘relativity’ and whenever it is tried to prove that this is alone the cause there is only failure to produce the evidence.
Perhaps an interesting experiment in trying to measure perception, but like the man who mistook his wife for a hat, what then does he make of it when he sees a real hat?
So, Yang was right.

Myrrh
May 8, 2011 3:40 pm

To mods, much appreciated.

Bart
May 8, 2011 4:14 pm

“There’s nothing here, after 52 years of experimental data collection, that can’t be explained in bog standard 3D movement of bodies in a fluid, curvature included.”
No, Myrrh, that just isn’t the case. Newtonian mechanics doesn’t explain the bending of light via gravitational lensing. It doesn’t explain the cosmological and gravitational redshifts. It doesn’t explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. It doesn’t explain the loss of output energy from binary pulsars. It doesn’t explain the clock trends on satellites and experimental aircraft.
That researchers are looking for chinks in the armor of General Relativity should come as no surprise. But, so far, none have been found. And, it is no reason to throw out all the results which have been confirmed when we can make such good use of them.
It is true that the frontiers are uncertain, and something even better may replace General Relativity as the leading theory of gravity someday. But, if so, it will simply extend General Relativity in the same way General Relativity extends Newtonian mechanics. At worst, all that will change is the interpretations, but not the formulas.

Richard S Courtney
May 8, 2011 5:43 pm

Myrrh:
I am making a comment in hope of clearing a log-jam in the interesting discussion you are having with Lief. My intention is to reduce misunderstanding that is hindering communication, but if it does not then please ignore this post.
At May 8, 2011 at 10:39 am you say in response to a comment from to Leif:
“What you’re not dealing with here is that “spacetime” is still unproven. These things may well happen, I don’t have the time to go into more complicated effects witnessed in our world, but you still haven’t proved that it is your “spacetime” that is doing this, that it even exists, that the method claimed is warping it is even possible!”
OK. But it does not matter if “spacetime is still unproven”. Indeed, it does not matter if spacetime exists other than as a useful concept.
Spacetime is an idea about the nature of the univers