# Thread: The Ruler is getting shorter.

1. Originally Posted by Greenlight 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.
Where does the change in gravity comes from?

Is this change in gravity large enough to cause the effect you claim? Please show your working. 2. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,272 Originally Posted by Greenlight The a in unruh formula is = D*Delta t + 0*g
IF05: Show your derivation is that "a" from physics, Greenlight.
IF06: Show that there is a "change in gravity" - start by stating what is having its gravity change (planets, stars. galaxies. clusters, superclusters?).

Otherwise we only have what you imagine, not any science. Originally Posted by Greenlight [B]All the experiments were performed under the same delta t at the same distance where redshift z=1100
That is extremely wrong, Greenlight. All measurements of the CMBR have been done on Earth or in Earth orbit or at the L2 point - all at a z ~ 0!
N,B. Unruh radiation is a predicted effect seen by an observer with a proper acceleration of a.
The Unruh effect (or sometimes Fulling–Davies–Unruh effect) is the prediction that an accelerating observer will observe blackbody radiation where an inertial observer would observe none. In other words, the background appears to be warm from an accelerating reference frame; in layman's terms, a thermometer waved around in empty space, subtracting any other contribution to its temperature, will record a non-zero temperature. For a uniformly accelerating observer, the ground state of an inertial observer is seen as in thermodynamic equilibrium with a non-zero temperature.
It is the "thermometer" tat is being accelerated.

IF02: What is the proper acceleration for the Unruh effect to produce a 2.72548±0.00057 K temperature and give your working.
Hint: to get about 1 K, a proper acceleration of 2.47×10^20 m·s-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.

IF04: Show the derivation of your formulas (distance X Delta t where Delta t = t - t' where t = t' sqrt{1-m'/m}).
Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Aug-01 at 09:54 PM. 3. Established Member
Join Date
Jul 2018
Posts
115 Originally Posted by Greenlight The Earth and Sun are both losing mass.
According to this website the Earth may in fact be gaining mass. https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...mass-over-time We don't know for sure if it's an overall net gain or loss for the Earth. So, if the Earth is in fact gaining more mass then it is loosing, how would that effect your idea? What would the CMBR look like on a planet that is gaining mass instead of loosing it?

A break even figure for mass equilibrium is 137 tonnes of comic dust daily, which is almost midway between the (widely differing) estimates of 5 to 300 tonnes of cosmic dust thought to fall on Earth daily. 4. Member
Join Date
Jul 2019
Posts
23
After initial calculations the results were much to small. However I recently found that due to the suns loss of mass the earths orbit is increasing (1.6cm / year) . This will cause a decrease in gravity via law of squares so the final outcome is that the change in mass causes a change in gravity to be proportional to m^3 and not just m. So back to the drawing board as i must derive a time dilation formula again that incorporates this additional change. It may be as simple as changing the m' to m'^3 but i will want to be sure. I will re-post the proper formulas when i get them all worked out correctly. 5. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,272
Simply "changing the m' to m'^3" is wrong. Whatever you are calculating with m' will become even more wrong with m'^3.
For example, look at E = mc^2 which has a derivation from the 2 postulates of SR. That is has the units of energy on both sides. Now simply change m to m^3. The units no longer match and the equation is obviously wrong.

Changes in the Earth's orbit are irrelevant to cosmology. They will have no effect on the CMBR. Unless the claim is that the Earth is accelerating at over 6 ×10^20 m·s-2 away from the Sun to produce Unruh radiation of a 2.72548±0.00057 K! 6. Originally Posted by Greenlight I will re-post the proper formulas when i get them all worked out correctly.
In the mean time, Greenlight, several questions that have been pending since your last post to this thread almost two weeks ago. If you want this thread to remain open, you are obligated to answer them. Please do so. 7. Member
Join Date
Jul 2019
Posts
23
the formula wasn't wrong originally, it was for a stationary object.
the new formula will not be for a stationary object but an object in orbit. So it will not be even more wrong it will also be correct. Just describing a different situation that matches reality of earth orbiting the sun.

g=GM/r^2

i didnt consider r changing in my thought experiment.
but now i know that r is proportional to the mass change so the change in gravity is proportional to M^3 not just M. 8. Member
Join Date
Jul 2019
Posts
23 Originally Posted by PetersCreek In the mean time, Greenlight, several questions that have been pending since your last post to this thread almost two weeks ago. If you want this thread to remain open, you are obligated to answer them. Please do so.
You can close this thread i will re-post when i have a more complete theory. I thought this would be a good place to get some feedback to help me get started on my theory, but this is more of a place to get a review of an already completed theory. Now i know what you will be looking for so i will re-post when i can answer all of your questions. 9. Originally Posted by Greenlight You can close this thread i will re-post when i have a more complete theory. I thought this would be a good place to get some feedback to help me get started on my theory, but this is more of a place to get a review of an already completed theory. Now i know what you will be looking for so i will re-post when i can answer all of your questions.
Just so there is no misunderstanding: you have only ONE chance to post your idea here. See rule 13 of the forum rules. If you post it again without prior permission the thread will be closed and you will likely receive an infraction. So if we close the thread now, there is a good chance you will never again get to present this idea here. 10. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,272 Originally Posted by Greenlight ...but now i know that r is proportional to the mass change so the change in gravity is proportional to M^3 not just M.
The Sun loses a relatively tiny bit of mass m per year. The change in g=GM/r^2 is M changing to M - m. That causes r to change but there is no change in gravity proportional to M^3. Put r on the other side of the equation and r is proportional to the square root of M. 11. Originally Posted by Reality Check The Sun loses a relatively tiny bit of mass m per year.
Relative to its own mass, yes. But relative to me, I'd say that 5 billion tons a second is not relatively tiny! 12. Member
Join Date
Jul 2019
Posts
23 Originally Posted by Reality Check The Sun loses a relatively tiny bit of mass m per year. The change in g=GM/r^2 is M changing to M - m. That causes r to change but there is no change in gravity proportional to M^3. Put r on the other side of the equation and r is proportional to the square root of M.
All the articles i find about the sun losing mass tell me that the earths orbit is increasing by 1.5 to 1.6 cm /year because of the mass loss.
https://slate.com/technology/2014/07...lose-mass.html
https://archive.briankoberlein.com/2...***/index.html
https://www.zmescience.com/science/n...-mass-gravity/

Not sure if all these sources are wrong or not but they sound credible.

1.5 /14.96 trillion = 1.0026738e-13 pretty close to

The Sun is losing about 6 x 10^12 grams per second, and has a mass of 2 x 10^33 grams. So the fraction of its mass it loses every year is about 10^-13

if g = GM/r^2 where r is inversely proportional to m
then g = GM/(1/M)^2 = GM^3
Last edited by Greenlight; 2019-Aug-15 at 09:07 PM. 13. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,272 Originally Posted by Greenlight All the ...
Repeating invalid physics. g = GM/r^2 says that r is proportional to the square root of M. Plug that in and we get the trial fact that g = g! An "r proportion to 1/M" appearing out of thin air is not valid physics.

And as I pointed out before: dimensional analysis immediately says g = GM^3 is wrong.
IF05: What are the units (dimensions) of g? What are the units (dimensions) of GM^3? Are these equal?

IF02: What is the proper acceleration for the Unruh effect to produce a 2.72548±0.00057 K temperature and give your working.
Hint: to get about 1 K, a proper acceleration of 2.47×10^20 m·s-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.

IF04: Show the derivation of your formulas (distance X Delta t where Delta t = t - t' where t = t' sqrt{1-m'/m}).
Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Aug-16 at 01:32 AM. 14. Member
Join Date
Jul 2019
Posts
23 Originally Posted by Reality Check Repeating invalid physics. g = GM/r^2 says that r is proportional to the square root of M. Plug that in and we get the trial fact that g = g! An "r proportion to 1/M" appearing out of thin air is not valid physics.

not valid physics is saying that as the Suns mass decreases, r (the distance to the earth) decreases. that just doesn't match reality. reality says its an inverse proportion.

I think you need to understand centripetal force. If mass (of the sun) goes to 0 the object(earth) would fly off into space to r = infinity. your math is saying that as mass goes to 0 the r goes to 0 we crash into the sun as it loses its grip on us? you got it backwards.
Last edited by Greenlight; 2019-Aug-16 at 01:06 PM. 15. Member
Join Date
Jul 2019
Posts
23
concerning IF02 and IF03
I should not have called it the unruh radiation. it would more properly be called unruh-hawking radiation. Because the physics behind its creation is the same but not the causes.
Last edited by Greenlight; 2019-Aug-16 at 03:50 PM. 16. Member
Join Date
Jul 2019
Posts
23
IF04

the formula comes from the gravitational time dilation formula solving for a change in mass. but as i stated earlier this was calculated with a static r. I now know r is changing inversely proportional to the mass. I am still working on this formula to incorporate this change in r. 17. Member
Join Date
Jul 2019
Posts
23
IF06 I am using the Sun as the main source of the mass loss and the entire solar system is losing gravity as an effect. 18. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,272 Originally Posted by Greenlight not valid physics is saying that as the Suns mass decreases, r (the distance to the earth) decreases.....
I am not saying this. r is proportional to the square root of M is what the equation you cite g=GM/r^2 states.

I am saying you are writing a blatantly wrong equation. It is basic physics that we cannot put a length equal to a velocity for example. The units of the LHS of a equation have to equal the units of the RHS of the equation. Thus IF05 (now IF07).

Your statements in the next posts are still no answer to the questions.
IF02: What is the proper acceleration for the Unruh effect to produce a 2.72548±0.00057 K temperature and give your working.
Hint: to get about 1 K, a proper acceleration of 2.47×10^20 m·s-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.
IF04: Show the derivation of your formulas (distance X Delta t where Delta t = t - t' where t = t' sqrt{1-m'/m}).
IF05: Show your derivation is that "a" from physics, Greenlight.
IF06: Show that there is a "change in gravity" - start by stating what is having its gravity change (planets, stars. galaxies. clusters, superclusters?).

IF07: What are the units (dimensions) of g? What are the units (dimensions) of GM^3? Are these equal?IF05: What are the units (dimensions...e these equal?
Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Aug-18 at 08:57 PM. 19. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,272 Originally Posted by Greenlight ...if g = GM/r^2 where r is inversely proportional to m
then g = GM/(1/M)^2 = GM^3
None of your sources state that r is inversely proportional to m. You do not state what m is. That m not appearing in (or magically becoming M) in the final equation says that that equation is wrong. The LHS units not agreeing with the RHS units makes the equation obviously wrong.

The gravitational acceleration of the Sun = g = GM/r^2 where M is the mass of the Sun. Let M decrease linearly, e.g. M = M - m*t, where m is a rate of mass change so that we have the right units. Then g(t) = G(M - m*t)/r^2 and g changes with time linearly with the mass of the Sun.

This is Newtonian orbital mechanics and nothing to do with GR or cosmology. It is a waste of time to calculate something like gravitational time dilation due to this infinitesimal change in r and thus g. Look at the "Outside a non-rotating sphere" equation where the Schwarzschild radius for the Sun is ~3000 metres. Because of solar mass loss the Earths distance from the Sun increases by about 1.6 centimeters per year. 20. Member
Join Date
Jul 2019
Posts
23 Originally Posted by Reality Check None of your sources state that r is inversely proportional to m. You do not state what m is. That m not appearing in (or magically becoming M) in the final equation says that that equation is wrong. The LHS units not agreeing with the RHS units makes the equation obviously wrong.

The gravitational acceleration of the Sun = g = GM/r^2 where M is the mass of the Sun. Let M decrease linearly, e.g. M = M - m*t, where m is a rate of mass change so that we have the right units. Then g(t) = G(M - m*t)/r^2 and g changes with time linearly with the mass of the Sun.

This is Newtonian orbital mechanics and nothing to do with GR or cosmology. It is a waste of time to calculate something like gravitational time dilation due to this infinitesimal change in r and thus g. Look at the "Outside a non-rotating sphere" equation where the Schwarzschild radius for the Sun is ~3000 metres. Because of solar mass loss the Earth’s distance from the Sun increases by about 1.6 centimeters per year.
Your not following my train of thought at all so let me start over

the Sun is losing mass and because of this earths orbit moves away by a distance proportional to the proportion of mass lost by the sun. Orbital mechanics tell us that the mass change is inversely proportional to radius change.
then you plug that into the formula for gravity to determine the change in gravity. the change in gravity then is proportional to mass change ^3

this weekend i calculated that when you put the m^3 in to replace g in the time dilation formula t' = t sqr(1-MG/rc^2) you have to multiply inside the sqr() by r/r to get r^2 on the bottom and then you can replace MG/r^2 with g and since g is proportional to m^3 you get t'=t sqr(1- rm^3/c^2) but since r is inversely proportional to m one of the m's will cancel out and you get t' =t sqr(1-m^2/c^2)

So overall the time dilation is proportional to the change in mass^2 even though g change is proportional to mass ^3

so the expansion rate due to time dilation caused by the Sun's mass loss or the change in time per time unit = (t sqr(1-2GM/rc^2)) - (t sqr(1-(2G(M-m)^2)/(M*r*c^2)))
where

t = proper time elapsed away from gravitational fields
G= gravitational constant
M = Mass of the Sun in this case
m= mass lost /t
r = distance from sun to earth
c = speed of light

IF02 ill take your word for it that it is 2.47×10^20 m·s-2
IF03 is not applicable as the cause for the space/time stretching is not a proper acceleration. The cause for unruh radiation and the cause for hawking radiation and the cause for this radiation are all different, but they all have the same end effect of spacetime stretching to rates beyond c. Which is the underlying cause for the radiation detection.

IF04 has been revised to the above.
IF06 E=MC^2 the change in mass/gravity comes from the sun expelling energy through nuclear reactions. Its effects reach beyond the solar system.
IF07 proportions have no units. or they retain the units of whatever you working with.
Last edited by Greenlight; 2019-Aug-19 at 03:30 PM. 21. Member
Join Date
Jul 2019
Posts
23 Originally Posted by Reality Check Then g(t) = G(M - m*t)/r^2 and g changes with time linearly with the mass of the Sun.
This is where i started and why IF04 was corrected because its only linear if r doesn't change. But r does change which makes it proportional to m^3 instead. Originally Posted by Reality Check This is Newtonian orbital mechanics and nothing to do with GR or cosmology. It is a waste of time to calculate something like gravitational time dilation due to this infinitesimal change in r and thus g. Look at the "Outside a non-rotating sphere" equation where the Schwarzschild radius for the Sun is ~3000 metres. Because of solar mass loss the Earth’s distance from the Sun increases by about 1.6 centimeters per year.
i did the calculation with g proportional to m^3. The change in the mass of the Sun alone is many orders too small to gain the effects i am looking for.

This is true sorry for wasting your time.  