# Thread: The Ruler is getting shorter.

1. Member
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. Originally Posted by Greenlight
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. Member
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. Originally Posted by Greenlight
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?

5. Member
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.

6. Originally Posted by Greenlight
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. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,434
Originally Posted by Greenlight
The Earth and Sun are both losing mass.
Correct, e.g. The combined effect is a net loss of material, estimated at 5.5×107 kg (5.4×104 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. Member
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. Originally Posted by Greenlight
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.

10. Member
Join Date
Jul 2019
Posts
23
Originally Posted by Strange
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.

11. Originally Posted by Greenlight
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.

12. Originally Posted by Greenlight
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.

13. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,434
Originally Posted by Greenlight
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.

14. Member
Join Date
Jul 2019
Posts
23
Originally Posted by Reality Check
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.

15. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,434
Originally Posted by Greenlight
The formulas were derived not "made up"
Then we have:
IF04: Show the derivation of your formulas.

16. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,434
Originally Posted by Greenlight
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. Member
Join Date
Jul 2019
Posts
23
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Correct, e.g. The combined effect is a net loss of material, estimated at 5.5×107 kg (5.4×104 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.

18. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,434
Originally Posted by Greenlight
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 2.72548±0.00057 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.

19. Member
Join Date
Jul 2019
Posts
23
Originally Posted by Reality Check
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 2.72548±0.00057 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.

20. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,434
Originally Posted by Greenlight
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 2.47×10^20 m·s-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 m·s-2.
IF02: What is the proper acceleration for the Unruh effect to produce a 2.72548±0.00057 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. faster time?

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

Originally Posted by Greenlight
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?

23. Established Member
Join Date
Jul 2018
Posts
150
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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,434
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!

29. 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.

30. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,434
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.

#### Posting Permissions

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