Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 52

Thread: The Ruler is getting shorter.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    23

    The Ruler is getting shorter.

    The Earth and Sun are both losing mass.
    Less mass = less gravity
    less gravity = faster time
    faster time = shorter ruler
    shorter ruler per time creates a Rindler horizon and some unruh radiation.
    makes the universe look like its expanding and then we see "CMBR".

    J.S.
    Last edited by Greenlight; 2019-Jul-29 at 08:17 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenlight View Post
    The Earth and Sun are both loosing mass.
    Really?

    Can you quantify this?

    Here is an estimate for the Earth:
    In fact from satellite observations of meteor trails it’s estimated that about 100 – 300 metric tons (tonnes) of material strikes Earth every day. That adds up to about 30,000 to 100,000 tonnes per year. That might seem like a lot, but over a million years that would only amount to less than a billionth of a percent of Earth’s total mass.
    https://archive.briankoberlein.com/2...***/index.html

    The mass of the Sun hardly seems relevant. But as you mention it:

    The Sun is losing about 6 x 1012 grams per second, and has a mass of 2 x 1033 grams. So the fraction of its mass it loses every year is about 10-13.
    https://slate.com/technology/2014/07...lose-mass.html

    Less mass = less gravity
    less gravity = faster time
    faster time = shorter ruler
    Can you quantify this?

    shorter ruler per time creates a Rindler horizon and some unruh radiation.
    makes the universe look like its expanding and then we see "CMBR".
    Please demonstrate, in mathematical detail, that the minute change in the mass of the Earth will have this effect (given that it is in the "wrong" direction).
    Last edited by Strange; 2019-Jul-29 at 08:19 PM. Reason: Figures for Sun

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    23
    The net loss is about 0.000000000000001% every year, so it doesn’t account for much when compared to the total mass of the Earth, which is 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes.
    https://scitechdaily.com/earth-loses...ss-every-year/


    The Sun is losing about 6 x 10^12 grams per second, and has a mass of 2 x 1033 grams. So the fraction of its mass it loses every year is about 10^-13

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    23
    wrong direction?

    when a ruler gets shorter the delay from SoL will make things at a further distance back in time seem longer than current measurements. this will create appearance of redshift.
    like taking a shrinking potion will make the room appear to grow. The further the distance the faster the growth will appear, appearing just like expansion of the universe.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenlight View Post
    The net loss is about 0.000000000000001% every year, so it doesn’t account for much when compared to the total mass of the Earth, which is 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes.
    https://scitechdaily.com/earth-loses...ss-every-year/


    The Sun is losing about 6 x 10^12 grams per second, and has a mass of 2 x 1033 grams. So the fraction of its mass it loses every year is about 10^-13
    As you stopped there and didn't go on to demonstrate that this somehow, magically, creates the CMBR, I assume you are conceding that the idea doesn't work?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenlight View Post
    when a ruler gets shorter the delay from SoL will make things at a further distance back in time seem longer than current measurements. this will create appearance of redshift.
    like taking a shrinking potion will make the room appear to grow.
    Please show quantitatively that this matches the observations.

    The further the distance the faster the growth will appear, appearing just like expansion of the universe.
    Why would this redshift be proportional to distance?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenlight View Post
    The Earth and Sun are both losing mass.
    Correct, e.g. The combined effect is a net loss of material, estimated at 5.5107 kg (5.4104 long tons) per year.

    What this means in GR is that we can compare a clock floating in space to s a clock on Earth and measure that the Earth clock is slower than the space one. For example GPS satellites have atomic clocks that would get 45 microseconds per day ahead of Earth atomic clocks if they were not adjusted to tick slower.

    This has nothing to do with the Rindler horizon which is part of SR.
    Any change in mass of the Earth or Sun has no effect on the mass of the universe in cosmology. The mass is still inside the universe!
    There is enormous evidence that the universe is expanding, not just the CMBR.
    Merely writing "some unruh radiation" does not give the cosmic microwave background.
    Thus your ATM idea is invalid.

    ETA: This is the Unruh effect which is caused by accelerating detectors. We have detected the CMBR with detectors under very different accelerations to have the same temperature. The first detections were ground-based so an acceleration of 1 g. Other detections from orbit (COBE), balloons and WMAP and Planck at Lagrange 2. Unruh radiation temperature is directly related to acceleration. Not getting different CMBR temperature for different accelerations also makes your ATM idea invalid.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jul-30 at 12:33 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    23
    the expansion = distance X Delta t
    where Delta t = t - t'
    where t = t' sqrt{1-m'/m}
    where m is starting mass and m' mass lost

    example for thought:
    if we shorten the meter by 10% per second at a constant rate this causes objects that are 1 lightsecond away to now appear 1.1111 light seconds away after 1 second. after two seconds it looks to be 1.234 after 3 seconds 1.3717 meters long ect

    if you move out to 9 lightseconds it looks to be 10 after 1 second. the rate of change is 1 lightsecond per second. The SoL where an apparent event horizon lies. The existence of Unruh radiation is linked to this apparent event horizon.
    Last edited by Greenlight; 2019-Jul-30 at 05:48 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Correct, e.g. The combined effect is a net loss of material, estimated at 5.5107 kg (5.4104 long tons) per year.

    What this means in GR is that we can compare a clock floating in space to s a clock on Earth and measure that the Earth clock is slower than the space one. For example GPS satellites have atomic clocks that would get 45 microseconds per day ahead of Earth atomic clocks if they were not adjusted to tick slower.

    This has nothing to do with the Rindler horizon which is part of SR.
    Any change in mass of the Earth or Sun has no effect on the mass of the universe in cosmology. The mass is still inside the universe!
    There is enormous evidence that the universe is expanding, not just the CMBR.
    Merely writing "some unruh radiation" does not give the cosmic microwave background.
    Thus your ATM idea is invalid.

    ETA: This is the Unruh effect which is caused by accelerating detectors. We have detected the CMBR with detectors under very different accelerations to have the same temperature. The first detections were ground-based so an acceleration of 1 g. Other detections from orbit (COBE), balloons and WMAP and Planck at Lagrange 2. Unruh radiation temperature is directly related to acceleration. Not getting different CMBR temperature for different accelerations also makes your ATM idea invalid.
    Unruh effect is due to proper acceleration
    In relativity theory, proper acceleration is the physical acceleration experienced by an object. It is thus acceleration relative to a free-fall, or inertial, observer who is momentarily at rest relative to the object being measured. Gravitation therefore does not cause proper acceleration.

    a uniform change in time flow will cause the free field to be decomposed into positive and negative frequency components before defining the creation and annihilation operators.
    Last edited by Greenlight; 2019-Jul-30 at 05:04 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenlight View Post
    example for thought:
    if we shorten the meter by 10% per second at a constant rate
    Please show, in detail, how a "net loss [of mass of] about 0.000000000000001% every year" causes a ruler to change in length by 10% per second. It seems implausible.

  11. #11
    faster time?

    It used to be one second per second. How fast is it now?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Please show, in detail, how a "net loss [of mass of] about 0.000000000000001% every year" causes a ruler to change in length by 10% per second. It seems implausible.
    an example for thought is not actual numbers its simplified so you can think about whats going on without having to do the difficult math thats why the arbitrary 10% was used for the thought experiment.

    the actual rate is going to be closer to 2x10^-18
    Last edited by Greenlight; 2019-Jul-30 at 06:51 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenlight View Post
    Unruh effect is due to proper acceleration. ...
    Correct and why your already invalid ATM idea is even more invalid, Greenlight! Formal questions for you:
    IF01: Why is the CMBR temperature measured to be the same under different proper accelerations when the Unruh effect gives different temperatures.
    IF02: What is the proper acceleration for the Unruh effect to produce a 2.725480.00057 K temperature.
    IF03: List the instruments that detected the CMBR undergoing that proper acceleration.

    FYI: Proper acceleration: Surface dwellers on a planet - the proper acceleration on the Earth's surface is ~9.8 m/s2.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenlight View Post
    an example for thought is not actual numbers its simplified so you can think about whats going on without having to do the difficult math thats why the arbitrary 10% was used for the thought experiment.

    the actual rate is going to be closer to 2x10^-18
    So you agree the numbers are not consistent with your hypothesis. It is therefore shown to be wrong.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenlight View Post
    the expansion ....
    An irrelevant and wrong calculation, Greenlight.
    Making up an equation from nothing is not valid science. Stating that the existence of Unruh radiation is related to an "apparent event horizon" is wrong. The existence of Unruh radiation is related to proper acceleration: Unruh effect. If we use Rindler coordinates to make the math easier, there is a coordinate event horizon. This need not exist if we select another coordinate system.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenlight View Post
    example for thought:
    You need an example from the real world, Greenlight, so that your predications can be matched with empirical data. Find a galaxy that is say a billion light years away and has a measured redshift. Calculate its mass loss (state exactly how is this done!). Plus this into your idea and get a redshift. Does it match the measured redshift?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Correct and why your already invalid ATM idea is even more invalid, Greenlight! Formal questions for you:
    IF01: Why is the CMBR temperature measured to be the same under different proper accelerations when the Unruh effect gives different temperatures.
    IF02: What is the proper acceleration for the Unruh effect to produce a 2.725480.00057 K temperature.
    IF03: List the instruments that detected the CMBR undergoing that proper acceleration.

    FYI: Proper acceleration: Surface dwellers on a planet - the proper acceleration on the Earth's surface is ~9.8 m/s2.
    1) they are all under the same 0 proper acceleration. Gravity does not produce proper acceleration
    2) 2x10^-18 m/s/s
    3) no instruments were under proper acceleration thats why they result in the same temp.

    FYI Gravitation therefore does not cause proper acceleration, since gravity acts upon the inertial observer that any proper acceleration must depart from. A corollary is that all inertial observers always have a proper acceleration of zero.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    An irrelevant and wrong calculation, Greenlight.
    Making up an equation from nothing is not valid science. Stating that the existence of Unruh radiation is related to an "apparent event horizon" is wrong. The existence of Unruh radiation is related to proper acceleration: Unruh effect. If we use Rindler coordinates to make the math easier, there is a coordinate event horizon. This need not exist if we select another coordinate system.
    The formulas were derived not "made up"
    the existence of Unruh radiation is related to proper acceleration only in the fact that the free field needs to be decomposed into positive and negative frequency components before defining the creation and annihilation operators in which the Rindler coordinate system allows through both proper acceleration or via an apparent acceleration through a change in the rate of time flow.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenlight View Post
    The formulas were derived not "made up"
    Then we have:
    IF04: Show the derivation of your formulas.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenlight View Post
    1) they are all under the same 0 proper acceleration. ...
    Read what the Unruh effect is again, Greenlight.

    Your answer to IF01 is that it is impossible for Unruh radiation to produce the CMBR because all instruments have "0 proper acceleration" which is a Unruh radiation temperature of 0 K but the CMBR has T = 2.72548 K. And there is the small point that T = 0 K is physically impossible to achieve.

    Your answer to IF02 is "2x10^-18 m/s/s" is obviously wrong. Thus, for example, a proper acceleration of 2.4710^20 ms-2 corresponds approximately to a temperature of 1 K. Unruh radiation has a T proportional to proper acceleration. T = 2.72548 K is over 6 10^+20 ms-2.
    IF02: What is the proper acceleration for the Unruh effect to produce a 2.725480.00057 K temperature and give your working.

    You did not understand my question:
    IF03: List the instruments that detected the CMBR undergoing that proper acceleration.
    Your claim is that the CMBR is Unruh radiation. The CMBR has a measured T = 2.72548 K. The instruments that made that measurement in your ATM idea must be measuring Unruh radiation with T = 2.72548 K. Thus those instruments must be undergoing the proper acceleration that gives that temperature. List those instruments that have that proper acceleration.

    You repeated the error that gravity does not produce proper acceleration. Proper acceleration for an object is what an accelerometer on the object measures. An accelerometer on the surface of the Earth measures an proper acceleration of ~9.81 m/s2. CMBR detectors on Earth have a proper acceleration in classical gravitation of ~9.81 m/s2. CMBR detectors on balloons have a different proper acceleration, especially since they are moving. CMBR detectors in orbits have a proper acceleration of 0.

    GR is different because gravitational force is a fictitious force which we could say gives a "fictitious proper acceleration". But we actually say there is no gravitational force or acceleration in GR because objects follow straight lines in a curved spacetime.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Read what the Unruh effect is again, Greenlight.

    Your answer to IF01 is that it is impossible for Unruh radiation to produce the CMBR because all instruments have "0 proper acceleration" which is a Unruh radiation temperature of 0 K but the CMBR has T = 2.72548 K. And there is the small point that T = 0 K is physically impossible to achieve.
    no, your not understanding what im saying. my answer to IF01 is that is is impossible for there to be a change detected in Unruh radiaition due to constant gravity. if a planet was under proper physical acceleration, the unruh radiation would be measured the same whether the experiment is done at the surface or at distance x from the surface. the proper acceleration remains the same for both the planet and the observer on the planet. gravitational acceleration is not proper physical acceleration so it doesn't apply.

    since we are dealing with gravitational time dilation it would be best to use relativity theory. In relativity theory, proper acceleration[1] is the physical acceleration experienced by an object. It is thus acceleration relative to a free-fall, or inertial, observer who is momentarily at rest relative to the object being measured. Gravitation therefore does not cause proper acceleration, since gravity acts upon the inertial observer that any proper acceleration must depart from. A corollary is that all inertial observers always have a proper acceleration of zero.



    Your answer to IF02 is "2x10^-18 m/s/s" is obviously wrong. your right there. there is a lot of math there. i will get to it when i can. Stay Tuned...


    IF03 All the experiments were done in earths gravitational field. gravity doesn't affect it, where change in gravity does via change in time. This rate of change is the same for all the experiments that are done within earth's decreasing gravitational field so they will all measure the same temperature.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

    You repeated the error that gravity does not produce proper acceleration. Proper acceleration for an object is ...
    please quote the third sentence in your link above. I apologize if wiki is wrong, as this is the way i understood it.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenlight View Post
    please quote the third sentence in your link above. I apologize if wiki is wrong, as this is the way i understood it.
    Why don’t you quote it?

    Gravitation therefore does not cause proper acceleration, since gravity acts upon the inertial observer that any proper acceleration must depart from.

    It is not very clear, so it is not surprising that you appear to have misunderstood it. Would it be clearer if we say that gravity does not cause acceleration (when in free fall) but standing on the Earth and resisting free fall does.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenlight View Post
    an example for thought is not actual numbers its simplified so you can think about whats going on without having to do the difficult math thats why the arbitrary 10% was used for the thought experiment.

    the actual rate is going to be closer to 2x10^-18
    As your numbers for the change in mass do not match the acceleration you claim to need )by many orders of magnitude) why haven’t you abandoned this idea?

    Also, you are relying on GR (gravitational time dilation) to try and disprove GR (expansion of space). This cannot work as GR is mathematically consistent and so cannot prove itself incorrect.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Why dont you quote it?

    Gravitation therefore does not cause proper acceleration, since gravity acts upon the inertial observer that any proper acceleration must depart from.

    It is not very clear, so it is not surprising that you appear to have misunderstood it. Would it be clearer if we say that gravity does not cause acceleration (when in free fall) but standing on the Earth and resisting free fall does.
    i did quote it several times and was told i am repeating an error. Do you think wiki is wrong too?

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenlight View Post
    i did quote it several times and was told i am repeating an error. Do you think wiki is wrong too?
    No. As I explained, you appear to misunderstand it

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,713
    Please answer this question:

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenlight View Post
    an example for thought is not actual numbers its simplified so you can think about whats going on without having to do the difficult math thats why the arbitrary 10% was used for the thought experiment.

    the actual rate is going to be closer to 2x10^-18
    As your numbers for the change in mass do not match the acceleration you claim to need (by many orders of magnitude) why haven’t you abandoned this idea?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenlight View Post
    my answer to IF01 is that is is impossible for there to be a change detected in Unruh radiaition due to constant gravity.....
    That is not your claim of the CMBR being Unruh radiation. You are repeating the error that is impossible to detect your "CMBR as Unruh radiation" in gravity when we have detected the CMBR in gravity
    • Ground based detectors in the Earth's gravity have detected the CMBR with T = 2.7 K.
    • Balloon based detectors that are moving and perhaps accelerating in Earth's gravity have detected the CMBR with T = 2.7 K.
    • Detectors orbiting the Earth in the Earth's gravity have detected the CMBR with T = 2.7 K.
    • Detectors orbiting the L2 point in the Earth's and the Sun's gravity have detected the CMBR with T = 2.7 K.

    As you quoted: Gravitation therefore does not cause proper acceleration. Thus your claim is that is impossible for us to ever have detected the CMBR ! This IF03 below.

    We are not dealing with gravitational time dilation. Unruh radiation is special relativity - "In special relativity, an observer moving with uniform proper acceleration a through Minkowski spacetime is conveniently described with Rindler coordinates ..."

    The Unruh radiation temperature is not a "lot of math": Unruh effect - Temperature equation is just the proper acceleration multiplied by the reduced Planck constant divided by ( 2 * pi ** c * the Boltzmann constant). That is simple multiplication and division using well known constants! For an order of magnitude estimate just multiply by proper acceleration by 10-19 to get temperature in K.

    IF02: What is the proper acceleration for the Unruh effect to produce a 2.725480.00057 K temperature and give your working.
    Hint: to get about 1 K, a proper acceleration of 2.4710^20 ms-2 is needed. It is likely that we will only detect Unruh radiation (if it exists!) in experiments.

    IF03: List the instruments that detected the CMBR undergoing that proper acceleration.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jul-31 at 09:17 PM.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenlight View Post
    please quote the third sentence in your link above. I apologize if wiki is wrong, as this is the way i understood it.
    Wikipedia is unclear in this instance but your invalid claim is clear. You are claiming that the CMBR is Unruh radiation and that Unruh radiation cannot be detected by detectors accelerating in a gravitational field. That is obviously wrong because detectors in gravitational fields measure the CMBR. Thus
    1. Your claim that CMBR is Unruh radiation is wrong and/or
    2. That sentence in Wikipedia needs more explanation.

    Your claim is obviously wrong because the detectors of the CMBR are not accelerating at the over 6 10^+20 ms-2 needed for Unruh radiation of T = 2.7 K !

    In curved spacetime - Surface dwellers on a planet
    For low speed observers being held at fixed radius from the center of a spherical planet or star, coordinate acceleration ashell is approximately related to proper acceleration ao by: ...
    So proper acceleration does exist in curved spacetime (GR). The last equation implies that it is zero (ashell looks like the measured acceleration of surface dwellers on a planet).

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    That is not your claim of the CMBR being Unruh radiation. You are repeating the error that is impossible to detect your "CMBR as Unruh radiation" in gravity when we have detected the CMBR in gravity
    you keep taking away and ignoring the word change.

    The a in unruh formula is = D*Delta t + 0*g where change in gravity causes the delta t but a uniform constant gravity is not a factor.

    All the experiments were performed under the same delta t at the same distance where redshift z=1100
    Last edited by Greenlight; 2019-Aug-01 at 02:03 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •