Ask any question you want about Physics

Lol, that graph is a load of bunk. There is nothing like gravity speed up. Ambient Time dilates as gravity reduces and mans chronometer will show gain in time as explained in my last post. Nist clocks when raised run faster due to the same time dilation effect.
Heck light a single candle with dark background, no wind etc and move it 2 meters higher and see the flame brighten perceptibly. Repeat this expt 10 times and let me know. Einstein GR belongs to the trash can.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol, that graph is a load of bunk. There is nothing like gravity speed up. Ambient Time dilates as gravity reduces and mans chronometer will show gain in time as explained in my last post. Nist clocks when raised run faster due to the same time dilation effect.
Heck light a single candle with dark background, no wind etc and move it 2 meters higher and see the flame brighten perceptibly. Repeat this expt 10 times and let me know. Einstein GR belongs to the trash can.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You do realize increasing the candles height is going to increase the number of things it can reflect light off of like a cieling. This is incredible stupid but by all means tell us in linens the increase. Don't tell me it looks brighter. The biggest thing that effects a candle is up draft. The more circulation the flame has the brighter it gets.

And why does it have to be candles I should be able to take led bulbs mount then to a wall and see the effect. Or Christmas lights on a house. Yet this doesn't seem to occur does it?

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol, that graph is a load of bunk. There is nothing like gravity speed up. Ambient Time dilates as gravity reduces and mans chronometer will show gain in time as explained in my last post. Nist clocks when raised run faster due to the same time dilation effect.
Heck light a single candle with dark background, no wind etc and move it 2 meters higher and see the flame brighten perceptibly. Repeat this expt 10 times and let me know. Einstein GR belongs to the trash can.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You do realize increasing the candles height is going to increase the number of things it can reflect light off of like a cieling. This is incredible stupid but by all means tell us in linens the increase. Don't tell me it looks brighter. The biggest thing that effects a candle is up draft. The more circulation the flame has the brighter it gets.

And why does it have to be candles I should be able to take led bulbs mount then to a wall and see the effect. Or Christmas lights on a house. Yet this doesn't seem to occur does it?

This expt is for arb to perform or you for that and control all the variables like ceiling, draft etc, matter and tell me. you response is incredibly stupid as if you are a novice to the English language.
cant do it with led bulbs or x mas lights as the fuel source is not there for the asking. resistance changes , so voltage/current will self limit.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Lol, that graph is a load of bunk. There is nothing like gravity speed up. Ambient Time dilates as gravity reduces and mans chronometer will show gain in time as explained in my last post. Nist clocks when raised run faster due to the same time dilation effect.

Regardless of experimental results, there is a terminology problem here. Dilation means to expand or stretch out yet you're using that to express a clock running faster. The word "dilation" does not infer such a meaning.

Here's an exaggerated sketch showing the dilation of 1 second of time at lower altitude:

I can't show it to scale since the difference would be so small it wouldn't show up.

So "running faster" and "dilation" are contradictory terms regardless of what the experiments show, thus your statement "Nist clocks when raised run faster due to the same time dilation effect." is inconsistent with the dictionary definition of "dilate" which means "expand" or "stretch out". As the above diagram shows, it is the length of one second that is expanded or stretched out or dilated when the clock is lowered one meter, though it's stretched by a much smaller amount than what is shown.

I agree with dragonridr's possible alternate explanations of candle brightness including more reflection from the ceiling and convection, plus I'd add the possibility that chemical reactions can be temperature dependent and can proceed faster at higher temperatures. Since heat rises and the top of a room may be warmer than the bottom of the room, raising the candle could also be moving it into a higher temperature environment, and could accelerate the chemical reaction which produces the flame, changing the flame for reasons other than clocks running faster or slower:

Fire

The dominant color in a flame changes with temperature.

I don't know why you insist on trying to use a candle for a clock even after it's been explained to you why they don't make very good clocks.

Not terminology but lack of scientific analysis. Read / understand & extrapolate on this post
www.abovetopsecret.com...
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Nochzwei
The extrapolation is shown below. Again the illustration is grossly exaggerated since the effects of gravitational redshift/blueshift on this scale are too small for perception by the unaided human eye, which is further reason why your candle test is doomed to fail. There simply isn't enough time difference in a height change of 2 meters for you to notice anything different about a candle due to clock rates, though you may see differences for other reasons. The NIST clocks have enough difficulty detecting a change over such a small altitude change, and they are detecting changes so small they are far, far beyond the limits of unaided human perception.


Note in the top view, you can see only three tops of waveforms. In the bottom view where time has been dilated (a fixed amount of time, "X" seconds, has been stretched out), a fourth waveform top appears.

If you normalize the time scales (make a second appear the same length on the horizontal axis), the bottom waveforms will be squashed closer together, and appear to have a higher frequency and this is what we mean when we say EM radiation is "blueshifted" as it goes lower into a gravitational well. In the original Pound-Rebka experiment the altitude change was about 22 meters, though later experiments measured the same effect with higher accuracy and less uncertainty.

So this concept is my understanding of what you're saying (if the exaggerations are removed), but the big difference in your claim is that Einstein got it backwards and time speeds up in a gravitational field. The Pound-Rebka experiment and many other experiments suggest Einstein got it right and you got it wrong. You still have not shared a single shred of evidence Einstein got it wrong and sorry to be so blunt about your candle experiment but all that shows is your ignorance regarding how to determine what factors affect experimental results.

hey man... give 'im a break! Tudor era scientists had to use what they had thus candles were high tech!


not victorian nor edwardian...tudor baby! they were this close to having flying horse drawn poop carts.

i might add though that anything you raise up will experience time dilation effects simply because it is further away from the center of mass of earth. of course you'd need incredible sensitivity to detect it but thanks to modern non tudorian clock technology this difference has been measured. it's not conjectural.

www.extremetech.com...

so if there are no gravity waves does that mean Einstein was wrong WRT his model for gravity? gravity waves are a prediction of relativity and gravity is one of the things we still do not understand. we can describe it; even characterize its effects mathematically both with newtonian mechanics and relativity;but both Einstein's prediction and the QM expectations have failed to materialize.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
so if there are no gravity waves does that mean Einstein was wrong WRT his model for gravity?

We're not there yet. We've been searching for gravitational waves and dark matter particles for decades but it may not be easy to detect either one.

I think we are a few decades away from dismissing gravitational waves, after launching and running some much larger space-based detectors. Joseph Weber's early detector was only expected to experience a change in size the width of a proton if it detected gravitational waves. Can you even imagine trying to detect such a signal over the noise from many other factors? I think it was impossible to do, and I'm not the only one.

Later detectors have been larger, but still ground based detectors can't match the scale of space-based detectors and all of them will have signal to noise problems though not as bad as with Joseph Weber's pioneering detector.

The bottom line is, they aren't easy to detect. It's not apparent to me you read the last part of the source you cited:

Physicists aren’t yet wavering on the idea that gravitational waves exist, and for now the focus will remain on how to detect them, and what to do with them after that.

a reply to: stormbringer1701
I don't know about tudor clocks. I was thinking about cuckoo clocks for some reason.

You got it backwards there mate. you extrapolate wrongly. Again read the post and understand it
www.abovetopsecret.com...
So in the video you say watched, what is your explanation for anti gravity being achieved, if not for time dilation
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Nochzwei
As I said I could write a book about what's wrong with that experiment but I'm not going to. I already wrote enough about the candles to show the experimenter doesn't know how to identify potential sources of variation and perform controlled experiments. Similar lists of variables can be made for the rest of the experiment just as for the candles.

i understand. today there was an article that said entire hydrogen atoms (on the surface of cryogenic ice) can quantum tunnel. thats basically a proton with an electron that won't leave the party. so yeah added to the difficulty of dealing with something that small you have to try it with something that small that can also teleport.

Hello, do you think Einsteins theories are more problematic to creating scenarios? And if? Which theoretical physicist should you follow?

originally posted by: Hyperia
Hello, do you think Einsteins theories are more problematic to creating scenarios? And if? Which theoretical physicist should you follow?

Einsteins theory works quite well. I'd say he may be a bit off on gravity waves (or not) but in every other test he has been confirmed for 100 years against every test.

He did not find a way to include Mach's ideas which he wanted very much to do. and i feel just because you can model something like gravity does not mean you necessarily know something more fundamental about it. Newton also described gravity pretty darned well but didn't do anything to really explain it. Relativity purists believe he (Einstein) fully explained it basically via geometry. i don't. i think his model is analogous to Newton's description. That is to say the Newton's math and Einsteins geometry can describe what gravity is doing but not what it is on a more fundamental level. And i think Einstein and others take his model's predictive ability concerning gravity's effects to mean the model is reality. It may not be. Skilled clockwork makers could make clocks and orrararies that made valid predictions or kept time accurately but got to them by absurdIy improbable round about ways. I often think Mach was closer to how gravity really works and how inertia really works than Einstein.

EDIT: Though Mach also never really got to a fully valid theory. However people who came after him such as Sciama and Wheeler (i think) added a lot to advance Mach's germ of a theory.

hey guys,

quick question. seeing if anyone can explain what the he'll a schwarzchild proton is. I know what a schwarzchild radius is but dont get the proton bit.

I got the term attempting to understand some guys theory on holographic gravity. I like holography n all and the idea is novel but not sure it adds up or makes sense all though I'd like it to.

basically I'm hung up on his proposition that protons are mini black holes.

anyone know about mr.haramein's work and if it makes any sense?

leaning toward thumbs down but want to run it past real physicists before I dismiss his notions and move on

a reply to: stormbringer1701

so they work? i mean practical?

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
hey guys,

quick question. seeing if anyone can explain what the he'll a schwarzchild proton is. I know what a schwarzchild radius is but dont get the proton bit.

I got the term attempting to understand some guys theory on holographic gravity. I like holography n all and the idea is novel but not sure it adds up or makes sense all though I'd like it to.

basically I'm hung up on his proposition that protons are mini black holes.

anyone know about mr.haramein's work and if it makes any sense?

leaning toward thumbs down but want to run it past real physicists before I dismiss his notions and move on

I am not a physicist but the only relationship i can think of is the shwarzchild radius of a material is a function of the mass and density. perhaps he was talking some ultra-dense material. i sometimes see this when talking about hypothetical matter made of monopoles. then the scwarchild radius for that matter would be about 1.3 centimeters.

originally posted by: Hyperia
Hello, do you think Einsteins theories are more problematic to creating scenarios? And if?

I don't understand the question, but there are some open questions such as is gravity quantized, do gravitons exist, and if so what is the correct model for quantized gravity?

Which theoretical physicist should you follow?

Lawrence Krauss is a theoretical physicist and if I can paraphrase something he said, he's been wrong a lot and he's not the only one so if you want to follow what appears to be right, follow the experiments.

This was part of his criticism of string "theory" which is really a hypothesis or should I say various hypotheses that have been bandied about without experimental confirmation for decades. Krauss admits some version of string theory could be right, but without experimental confirmation we have no way to know.

So which theoretical physicist should you follow? The one whose idea has been tested in experiment and not falsified. Even that doesn't mean his or her next idea won't be falsified in experiment.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
anyone know about mr.haramein's work and if it makes any sense?

leaning toward thumbs down but want to run it past real physicists before I dismiss his notions and move on

By Haramein's own admission his model doesn't match observation, since a single proton would have the same mass as a mountain, and obviously it doesn't.

His response to this criticism? Vacuum catastrophe etc, saying some other theoretical predictions suck too. While it's true there's a vacuum catastrophe in that we don't have a good model to predict vacuum energy, we admit we don't have a good model to predict vacuum energy, and vacuum energy is difficult to measure. None of this means that a model which predicts that a proton has the mass of a mountain instead of the observed value is a good model.

With modern science we can determine the mass of a proton to a reasonably good accuracy, and there's no catastrophe with that measurement, so since that observation doesn't match his model, his model is wrong.

originally posted by: Hyperia
a reply to: stormbringer1701

so they work? i mean practical?

you mean The Mach's principle theories? they are partly unfinished but they do explains some things about the relationship between gravity and inertia at a very fundamental level. and parts of Mach's principle has positive evidence going for it in Dr Woodward's work at U.C. Fullerton. mass fluctuations in moving matter in which portions are accelerating such as in PZT dielectrics were predicted by mathematical formulations of his principle. Woodward says that for that portion of the equation to be true the rest of it must also be true. and if so it means some really deep weird stuff for future investigators.