• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

The expanding universe can also be seen as a relativistic 'spacestretch'

MaartenVergu

Illuminator
MaartenVergu
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
3,146
Hello,

I'm Maarten from Belgium (so excuse me for my English) and I have a theory on relativity. Do not understand me wrong: I accept the SRT and the GRT. This theory is about gravity. I do not change a thing on the idea of the geometry of spacetime (GRT). But I want to explain something about 'the expanding universe' as a relativistic effect given different clocks...

I will explain this and I will explain why space not only 'contracts' with timedilation, but can also 'stretch' (space-stretch)

First, a question.


Different clocks and G

One year for the travelling twin will be five years on Earth for the twin who was left behind. (fictional example, twinparadox)

Imaging you are a travelling twin who has a brother on Earth. And you want to go near the speed of light.
You also like to look back to the object Earth with a large telescope.

At what speed does the Earth turn around its axis and at what speed does Earth turn around the sun with my twin brother on it, given my clock?

Remember:

One day = one turn around its axis
One year = 365 rotations around Earth’s axis, 12 wobbles with a moon, and one circular motion around the sun.

Given the fact that one day for me is one year for my twin brother, given my speed.

So would that object Earth will fall slower, given my clock. Or not?

The first thing you can notice here:

There is a 'problem of motion’. Does Earth accelerate? Do the laws of gravity change, given different clocks?
What’s going on?

This object (Earth) will move too, like it always does. But the question is
‘how fast?’ Relative to who’s clock?

One year is equal to one move around the sun
One day is equal to one turn around Earth’s axis.

But time differs for both observers.

And when time differs for both observers: how does this effect our perception/measurements of fallen objects? Remember: there is not a body in space that is not falling towards something else.

In what way will all the heavenly bodies fall ‘differently’ towards each other given different clocks for different observers?

G must be constant for all observers, even when clocks differ

G (the gravitational constant) must be the same for all observers.
All the bodies in space - must fall towards each other, obeying the laws of physics (i.c. gravity) for every frame of reference.
The measured velocities in the gravitational fields must somehow be related to the clocks of the observers, to hold G constant.

Will all objects fall like they do as if it was one day on Earth for you?


Nature has a solution for that:

Relativistic measurements of motion, time and space in the gravitational field

Lisa and Bart
Lisa stands next to Bart on Earth.
Bart takes his rocket to space.
Lisa begins to move around more and more.
She turns around with the Earth,
When Bart leaves the solarsystem
He sees Lisa going in spirals around the sun
Once Bart is out of the Milkey Way
Lisa is doing more moves in the Mikey Way,
Because the sun is moving in the galaxy
And far far away, Bart sees Lisa with the whole galaxy redshifting…

Lisa goes progressively through more spatial dimensions, seen from different time-points of view, because of the difference in gravity.

So: that’s a relativistic observation from Bart’s referencepoint of view in the gravitational field.

The observer will see more motion of the same object, while he is progressively leaving the gravitational fiellds. His clock will differ more and more, so he will see, relative to his reference frame, more motion of the same object.

And the other way around.

And far far away, he will see the heaveness of far milkeyways and clusters, and they fall towards the whole universe.
So Hubble's law (spacestretch in stead of lengthcontraction) is a relativistic effect, given an observer with a relative different clock.

So no Big Bangtheory is needed.

Maybe this theory is for the crackpotindex,
maybe not.
I want to discuss it here.

friendly regards,
Maarten Vergucht
Antwerp
 
Last edited:
Thank you. I may have a little bit more...

I think that C AND G must be constant for all observers, given different clocks.
And to do so, space will stretch, and motions will change elsewhere, because of your normal ticking clock, wherever you are in the gravitational field.

So, from your point on, all clusters will redshift.

Because your clock will tick normal, wherever you are.

It's the criterium for perceived/measured distortions and dilations elsewhere, where clocks ticks different in respect to your normal ticking clock.

I must honestly say that I have some more, but I know sceptics will break that theory like hell.

like this one:

"the observer (defined as a zeropoint in spacetime) is the measurement for spacedilation and timedilation, motion or standing still given his or her normal ticking clock"

But that's something I maybe do not want to discuss here. Because 'observer' can not be defined in a scientific way. It's a zeropoint in the material world. It's nothing.

f.e.: when you are an astronaut and you are hanging above Earth. Because of your difference in time, Earth must turn around.

Because your clock - for you - is ticking normal. So other things, who's clocks are different, must 'move' in your perception of how time flows.
 
Last edited:
Maarten,why is no Big Bang theory needed? And the spinning of the earth is irrelevant to the twin paradox. Try reading 'The ABC Of Relativity' by Bertrand Russell,there is a copy in the Permeke.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
Hello,



I will explain this and I will explain why space not only 'contracts' with timedilation, but can also 'stretch' (space-stretch)



One year for the travelling twin will be five years on Earth for the twin who was left behind. (fictional example, twinparadox)

Imaging you are a travelling twin who has a brother on Earth. And you want to go near the speed of light.
You also like to look back to the object Earth with a large telescope.

At what speed does the Earth turn around its axis and at what speed does Earth turn around the sun with my twin brother on it, given my clock?

Remember:

One day = one turn around its axis
One year = 365 rotations around Earth’s axis, 12 wobbles with a moon, and one circular motion around the sun.

Given the fact that one day for me is one year for my twin brother, given my speed.

So would that object Earth will fall slower, given my clock. Or not?

The first thing you can notice here:

There is a 'problem of motion’. Does Earth accelerate? Do the laws of gravity change, given different clocks?
What’s going on?

This object (Earth) will move too, like it always does. But the question is
‘how fast?’ Relative to who’s clock?

One year is equal to one move around the sun
One day is equal to one turn around Earth’s axis.

But time differs for both observers.

And when time differs for both observers: how does this effect our perception/measurements of fallen objects? Remember: there is not a body in space that is not falling towards something else.
In what way will all the heavenly bodies fall ‘differently’ towards each other given different clocks for different observers?

G must be constant for all observers, even when clocks differ

G (the gravitational constant) must be the same for all observers.
All the bodies in space - must fall towards each other, obeying the laws of physics (i.c. gravity) for every frame of reference.
The measured velocities in the gravitational fields must somehow be related to the clocks of the observers, to hold G constant.

Will all objects fall like they do as if it was one day on Earth for you?


Nature has a solution for that:

Relativistic measurements of motion, time and space in the gravitational field

Lisa and Bart
Lisa stands next to Bart on Earth.
Bart takes his rocket to space.
Lisa begins to move around more and more.
She turns around with the Earth,
When Bart leaves the solarsystem
He sees Lisa going in spirals around the sun
Once Bart is out of the Milkey Way
Lisa is doing more moves in the Mikey Way,
Because the sun is moving in the galaxy
And far far away, Bart sees Lisa with the whole galaxy redshifting…

Lisa goes progressively through more spatial dimensions, seen from different time-points of view, because of the difference in gravity. So: that’s a relativistic observation from Bart’s referencepoint of view in the gravitational field.

The observer will see more motion of the same object, while he is progressively leaving the gravitational fiellds. His clock will differ more and more, so he will see, relative to his reference frame, more motion of the same object.

And the other way around.

And far far away, he will see the heaveness of far milkeyways and clusters, and they fall towards the whole universe.So Hubble's law (spacestretch in stead of lengthcontraction) is a relativistic effect, given an observer with a relative different clock.

So no Big Bangtheory is needed.
Maybe this theory is for the crackpotindex,
maybe not.
I want to discuss it here.

friendly regards,
Maarten Vergucht
Antwerp
Click to expand...

The highlighted parts do belong in the crackpotindex Maarten. Sorry,jongen. I would suggest that you do some reading. Groeten,Dafydd
 
Thank you for this comment, you are right.

you must know: the evidence already exists in science. The math is already there.
its only a matter of interpreting these facts in a relativistic way.

I do admit that it's not formulated very well.
'to more spatial dimensions' is a bit odd.
What I mean is and is formulated more 'correct':
'you will measure more motion of the same object, from your frame of reference point of view.'
The object seems to move through more space, then it did before. You can measure that, from that reference point.

And the extra space'dimension' is the different way this object moves - given your new referencepoint:
circular motions of the same object, but in spiral formes around a star. And that star begins to move too.

Or given your different clock. Given your distance, you will measure these motions through more spatial dimensions of the same body.

Imagine yourself only a referencepoint on Earth. And think as if Earth isn't there. When you escape gravity, that referencepoint circles around first, than it will circle in spirals, than in bigger spirals etcetera.

Spirals are unfolding them. (extra dimensions)

the curvature of spacetime is different. given your new position. Or you can say: 'your' spacetime is been curved different there.

And 'falling clusters towards the whole universe' is also not formulated very well.

its more like this:

given your distance, more motion through more space is involved. (Hubbles law)

I think because the clock of the observed 'object' (cluster) is totally different from your clock. So space must do strange. Very strange.


And of course, when the expansion of space can be explained as a relativistic measurement because of the difference in time given a referencepoint, there is no need for a big bangtheory about an expanding universe.

(Ockham's razer)


I forgot one:
Remember: there is not a body in space that is not falling towards something else.
Click to expand...

I want to think through this one, because it seems that it's a true crackpot one. But remember, a body is an emergent fenomenon of bodies, hold together by gravity. And an object will always distort 'your' time, because of its gravity. Even when it's very small. it will curve spacetime. And the universe itself has mass too. And we could see these objects fall towards it. All bodies will fall the same towards 'the universe' as a whole, circling around. (if this idea could be truth)

We can not see this of ourselves. Can you see that you are going at 170.000 km/h around the sun?
You only can see that this Earth is turning around itself when you are an astronaut. Given your new referencepoint.

So we can not see the mass of the universe, giving us gravitational acceleration. But we can see it from more distance or when we zoom out. Our galaxy will also circle around in the whole universe.

And: can you be more specific. What lecture do you mean? What subject are you thinking about?
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
Thank you for this comment, you are right.

you must know: the evidence already exists in science. The math is already there.
its only a matter of interpreting these facts in a relativistic way.

I do admit that it's not formulated very well.
'to more spatial dimensions' is a bit odd.
What I mean is and is formulated more 'correct':
'you will measure more motion of the same object, from your frame of reference point of view.'
The object seems to move through more space, then it did before. You can measure that, from that reference point.

And the extra space'dimension' is the different way this object moves - given your new referencepoint:
circular motions of the same object, but in spiral formes around a star. And that star begins to move too.

Or given your different clock. Given your distance, you will measure these motions through more spatial dimensions of the same body.

Imagine yourself only a referencepoint on Earth. And think as if Earth isn't there. When you escape gravity, that referencepoint circles around first, than it will circle in spirals, than in bigger spirals etcetera.

the curvature of spacetime is different. given your new position. Or you can say: 'your' spacetime is been curved different there.

And 'falling clusters towards the whole universe' is also not formulated very well.

its more like this:

given your distance, more motion through more space is involved. (Hubbles law)

I do not know why exactly. I think because the clock of the observed 'object' (cluster) is totally different from your clock. So space must do strange. Very strange.


And of course, when the expansion of space can be explained as a relativistic measurement because of the difference in time given a referencepoint, there is no need for a big bangtheory about an expanding universe.

(Ockham's razer)


I forgot one:


I want to think through this one, because it seems that it's a true crackpot one. But remember, a body is an emergent fenomenon of bodies, hold together by gravity. And an object will always distort 'your' time, because of its gravity. Even when it's very small. it will curve spacetime. And the universe itself has mass too. And we could see these objects fall towards it. All bodies will fall the same towards 'the universe' as a whole, circling around. (if this idea could be truth)

We can not see this of ourselves. Can you see that you are going at 170.000 km/h around the sun?
You only can see that this Earth is turning around itself when you are an astronaut. Given your new referencepoint.

So we can not see the mass of the universe, giving us gravitational acceleration. But we can see it from more distance or when we zoom out. Our galaxy will also circle around in the whole universe.

And: can you be more specific. What lecture do you mean? What subject are you thinking about?
Click to expand...

The phrase "falling toward the whole universe" is meaningless. Our galaxy does not circle around the whole universe. I would suggest that you go to Antwerp central library and borrow some books about relativity and cosmology. How can the earth " turn around itself" The Earth does revolve,if that is what you mean but it cannot create a double to turn revolve around. I have no idea what you mean by "we cannot see the mass of the universe." We can't "see" the mass of the Earth either. If there is no need for a Big bang theory,how did the universe begin? You are commenting on matters that you appear to know very little about.
 
Good comments, though.

This is a decent and humble person. Let's not run him off.
 
ok, thank you Quarky.

Dafydd does not (want to) see these facts through the lens of a relativistic view. And that's his problem. And he is critising the way I'm formulating it. (and that is a good thing)

How can the earth " turn around itself" The Earth does revolve,if that is what you mean but it cannot create a double to turn revolve around.
Click to expand...

Of course. But it is not what I mean. It's not about which twin is really moving.
It's about what an observer will measure given his of her frame of reference.

When you are not turning around the sun anymore and you escaped its gravity, then you will see the Earth turn around the sun on its full speed while Earth 'revolves'. That's a relativistic measurement of motion.
Earth is orbiting around a central point. But you will see that point move around a sun too. So your referencepoint on Earth will move different - given your position outside that gravitational field.

It's another way of interpreting the same fact. I can understand that can be difficult for some people.

I'm not talking about Earth's 'real motion'. I'm talking about relativistic measurements by different observers given their different clocks, caused by the gravitational timedilation.

You must see it through the glass of relativistic effects. Like lengthcontraction and timedilation in the SRT.
The travelling twin will see 'movement' and 'lengthcontraction' too. But in reality, he is the one who is moving.



Dafydd did not read the whole sentence too

So we can not see the mass of the universe, giving us gravitational acceleration
Click to expand...

We can not see ourselves, our galaxy move. (in relativistic terms)
The Earth is not turning around, when you are standing on it, in a relativistic way.
You stand still and the ground under your feet also stands still. That's measurable motion, given your position, given your clock.

Dafydd says:
"falling toward the whole universe" is meaningless
Click to expand...

I can formulate it different: the curvature of spacetime by the universe as a whole. (an emergent whole)
 
Last edited:
Maarten also believes thatn there are artificial structures on Mars.
http://forum.skepp.be/viewtopic.php?t=1750

Stick to psychology Maarten,I've perused some threads of yours on other sites and you appear to know something about that subject.

If anyone can read Nederlands,Maarten claims that the Big Bang was a supernova and that dark matter is planets and stars that we cannot see.
http://www.ikhebeenvraag.be/vraag/18898
If anyone is interested then I can provide a translation.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
ok, thank you Quarky.

Dafydd does not (want to) see these facts through the lens of a relativistic view. And that's his problem. And he is critising the way I'm formulating it. (and that is a good thing)



Of course. But it is not what I mean. It's not about which twin is really moving.
It's about what an observer will measure given his of her frame of reference.

When you are not turning around the sun anymore and you escaped its gravity, then you will see the Earth turn around the sun on its full speed while Earth 'revolves'. That's a relativistic measurement of motion.
Earth is orbiting around a central point. But you will see that point move around a sun too. So your referencepoint on Earth will move different - given your position outside that gravitational field.

It's another way of interpreting the same fact. I can understand that can be difficult for some people.I'm not talking about Earth's 'real motion'. I'm talking about relativistic measurements by different observers given their different clocks, caused by the gravitational timedilation.

You must see it through the glass of relativistic effects. Like lengthcontraction and timedilation in the SRT.
The travelling twin will see 'movement' and 'lengthcontraction' too. But in reality, he is the one who is moving.



Dafydd did not read the whole sentence too



We can not see ourselves, our galaxy move. (in relativistic terms)
The Earth is not turning around, when you are standing on it, in a relativistic way.
You stand still and the ground under your feet also stands still. That's measurable motion, given your position, given your clock.

Dafydd says:


I can formulate it different: the curvature of spacetime by the universe as a whole. (an emergent whole)
Click to expand...

Stick to pyschology. The first highlighted part is pure hubris and the second is meaningless.
 
Last edited:
wow, dafydd.

I don't want to defend myself here. He wants to descredit a theory by arguments ad hominem.
Now I understand his very strange behaviour.

But even I do not want to defend myself here as a person, I want to correct these falacies of dafydd.

I do not believe there were structures on Mars. I posted that on the Skeppforum to have a good discussion. At the end of that discussion you can see that I gave the argument why it could not be truth. I do not believe there are structures on Mars. (first falacy of Davydd)

Stick to pyschology. The first highlighted part is pure hubris and the second is meaningless
Click to expand...

Can you argument why it is 'meaningless' (A word you like to use)

I did study psychology.

For the people who don't know me:

I was very interesting in how we observe space and time. And it's thanks to my psychological view, that I could find out that there are relativistic measurements in space too. When you want to study how we perceive time, you must study something about relativity. Not everything. Just for the sake of your study.

My study is about 'perceiving' time and space. So, it's a different angle.

Maybe Dafydd is the agressive person on that Skeppforum. I don't know who you are Dafydd.
What's your nickname on Skepp and why are not arguing on the theory itself?
And are you only using the word 'meaningless' without arguing? (but only highlighting)
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
wow, dafydd.

there are relativistic measurements in space too.
Click to expand...

This may come as a shock to you,but we already knew that. The USA will be waking up soon and some people more qualified that me will take you up on this. I am not trying to insult you,but your ideas about relativity and cosmolgy are just plain wrong.
 
Maartenn100 said:
My studying is about 'perceiving' time and space. So, it's a different angle.

Maybe Dafydd is the agressive person on that Skeppforum. I don't know who you are Dafydd.
What's your nickname on Skepp and why you are not arguing on the theory itself?
Click to expand...

I am not a member there. It does not matter how you percieve space and time,it's still the same space and time. If you have any new theories about these matters then you will have to provide the maths too. I am not arguing the theory because I am quite happy with what we already know about relativity. Trouwens,hoe kan ik dat doen terwijl jij zo weing kent over dit onderwerp?
 
Last edited:
More proof (in English) that you do not understand the Twin Paradox.
http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=628832

You are wrong Maarten,the twins will not be the same age when they reunite. Why do you think that they have to adjust the software of gps satellites to take relatavistic effects into account? Sensitive atomic clocks have been flown atound the world on fast planes and ran slower because of these effects. You're on a loser here. Same with your rockets launching other rockets idea.
http://vtk.ugent.be/forum/viewtopic.php?f=173&t=29972
 
Last edited:
I already told this here:

the math already exists.
The science is already there.

Did Friedmann proved his postulates about the uniformity of the redshifting? (I hope my English is well?)

It's not a matter of describing what's going on,
it's a matter of interpreting what's going on when we see all starclusters 'redshifting'.
 
Last edited:
It's obvious that Dafydd uses very vague language to make his point.
What's wrong? What's right? Why it's wrong? Can you say specifically what I said wrong and why?
Can you give arguments please.
That's where a discussion is for.

Ok, back on topic:

Einstein did discover that distance is relative. When you measure the distance of a moving train, or the person inside that train measures that distance: the measurements will differ for both observers. And they will have a different idea about simultaniety and their clocks will differ.

So their is a triangle here:

different clocks mean the observation of motion and the observation of 'a different space (distance)'.
These things are somehow always together.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
It's obvious that Dafydd uses very vague language to make his point.
What's wrong? What's right? Why it's wrong? Can you say specifically what I said wrong and why?
Can you that argue please.
That's where a discussion is for.
Click to expand...

Read some books on relativity if you want to find out why you are wrong. I am not responsible for your education. Show me the maths that says that the twins will still be the same age. The very fact that the software for gps satellites has to be adjusted to take relativistic effects into account invalidates your argument.
 
Last edited:
You are wrong Maarten,the twins will not be the same age when they reunite.
Click to expand...

I like you to argument on this theory here. And not on some topic weeks ago on another forum. I was indeed asking myself this question: I can explain this later. It's a very good point. Because I will argue what I ment with that later.


Why do you think that they have to adjust the software of gps satellites to take relatavistic effects into account?

Because of gravitational timedilation?

Sensitive atomic clocks have been flown atound the world on fast planes and ran slower because of these effects.
Click to expand...

... in a uniform gravitational field.


I will explain the difference later. (you ask a lot, but that's good. I can argue why later)

in a uniform gravitational field

You're on a loser here
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. You seem to want that?
Click to expand...
 
Maartenn100 said:
It's obvious that Dafydd uses very vague language to make his point.
What's wrong? What's right? Why it's wrong? Can you say specifically what I said wrong and why?
Can you give arguments please.
That's where a discussion is for.

Ok, back on topic:

Einstein did discover that distance is relative. When you measure the distance of a moving train, or the person inside that train measures that distance: the measurements will differ for both observers. And they will have a different idea about simultaniety and their clocks will differ.

So their is a triangle here:

different clocks mean the observation of motion and the observation of 'a different space (distance)'.
These things are somehow always together.
Click to expand...

Not distance or a "different space". Please read up on this subject.
 
Maartenn100 said:
I like you to argument on this theory here.
Click to expand...
It's not a theory, it's been proved. Clocks which remain on earth show more time passed than identical clocks which are sent into space and then returned to the earth.

The twins do not have identical experiences because the one that stays on earth undergoes no acceleration, whilst the one that's sent into space, travels around, and then returns does.
 
another view on the twinparadox

the twinparadox is about a twin leaving the Earth's gravitational field to reach the speed of light.

I already told you here that there will be a motion problem of objects falling to eachother(see text above) given different clocks.

But what is the next problem here:

Straightforward acceleration in relatively rotating systems (f.e. near speed of light)

What does ‘straightforward’ mean in a rotating system? In fields of curved spacetime?

A traindriver on Earth ‘thinks’ he or she accelerates straightforward all the time. But from outside that Earth system, this train turns around in circles, with an angular velocity.
And an astronaut, further away, outside our Solar system for example, will see that same train turning in strange spiral circles, wobbling and rotating in bigger spirals.
So, when you are talking about a twin paradox in space, and you think about straightforward acceleration near the speed of light in space, I would say:
There is no objective straightforward acceleration in space. ‘Straightforward’ is a relativistic term in relatively rotating gravitational fields.

Nowadays, the idea tells us that when an observer reaches the speed of light, the gravitational forces can’t beat this kind of high speeds near c of the speed of light. So, you will have speed enough to escape gravity. And with enough energy you can reach a very high speed.


But that’s not possible in space.
The curvature of spacetime will change
straightforward acceleration into centripetal acceleration seen from outside the field.

Straightforward in our solarsystem is, when you zoom out and see the whole Milkey Way, centripetal acceleration.

Your 'concept' of straightforward is different.


So in my hypothesis I say:
By escaping the gravitational influence of an object, your must follow a curved path to do so – curved seen from within the system. Because from outside that system: it’s the most straightforward path in a rotating system you are following. Rotating, seen from outside.

It’s a coriolispathway of that rotating gravitational system. That would be your path to escape gravity.

To go straight forward and outside the influence of the gravitational field, you must have a centripetal acceleration. Because when you accelerate straightforward from your reference point of view in that field, you will circle around the heavy object. And you ‘think’ you go straightforward.



The fictional train driver from Steven Hawking who travels near light speed thinks he reaches the speed of light on Earth, but he goes in circles and strange spirals seen from without our Solar System.
This train driver thinks that he is forming ‘straightforward pathways’ in the universe. But these are all curved, spiral and will move in strange helical motions, seen from another point of view.
The system that you ‘use’ as reference point, gives you the glasses to see what it means from there to see another observer to go ‘straightforward’ according to his measurements (ideas) of curved and straight paths.
(and no Big Bang is needed to explain the expanding universe with this theory)

Yours sincerely
Maarten Vergucht
Belgium
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
I like you to argument on this theory here. And not on some topic weeks ago on another forum. I was indeed asking myself this question: I can explain this later. It's a very good point. Because I will argue what I ment with that later.


Why do you think that they have to adjust the software of gps satellites to take relatavistic effects into account?

Because of gravitational timedilation?



... in a uniform gravitational field.


I will explain the difference later. (you ask a lot, but that's good. I can argue why later)

in a uniform gravitational field



Maybe, maybe not. You seem to want that?
Click to expand...

I don't want anything. You believe what you want to. I don't care. You are contradicting yourself about the twin paradox and satellities. I will wait until the real physicists in the States wake up. They can deal with this. I am an amateur in this field,just like yourself,but I know enough to spot the flaws in your reasoning. You are not the first one to turn up here claiming that they know more about these subjects than Einstein. They never do know more. Now I have to get back to babysitting my grandson.
Click to expand...
 
Maartenn100 said:
I like you to argument on this theory here. And not on some topic weeks ago on another forum. I was indeed asking myself this question: I can explain this later. It's a very good point. Because I will argue what I ment with that later.


Why do you think that they have to adjust the software of gps satellites to take relatavistic effects into account?

Because of gravitational timedilation?



... in a uniform gravitational field.


I will explain the difference later. (you ask a lot, but that's good. I can argue why later)

in a uniform gravitational field



Maybe, maybe not. You seem to want that?
Click to expand...

Maartenn100 said:
another view on the twinparadox

the twinparadox is about a twin leaving the Earth's gravitational field to reach the speed of light.

I already told you here that there will be a motion problem of objects falling to eachother(see text above) given different clocks.

But what is the next problem here:

Straightforward acceleration in relatively rotating systems (f.e. near speed of light)

What does ‘straightforward’ mean in a rotating system? In fields of curved spacetime?

A traindriver on Earth ‘thinks’ he or she accelerates straightforward all the time. But from outside that Earth system, this train turns around in circles, with an angular velocity.
And an astronaut, further away, outside our Solar system for example, will see that same train turning in strange spiral circles, wobbling and rotating in bigger spirals.
So, when you are talking about a twin paradox in space, and you think about straightforward acceleration near the speed of light in space, I would say:
There is no objective straightforward acceleration in space. ‘Straightforward’ is a relativistic term in relatively rotating gravitational fields.

Nowadays, the idea tells us that when an observer reaches the speed of light, the gravitational forces can’t beat this kind of high speeds near c of the speed of light. So, you will have speed enough to escape gravity. And with enough energy you can reach a very high speed.


But that’s not possible in space.
The curvature of spacetime will change
straightforward acceleration into centripetal acceleration seen from outside the field.

Your 'concept' of straightforward is different.


So in my hypothesis I say:
By escaping the gravitational influence of an object, your must follow a curved path to do so – curved seen from within the system. Because from outside that system: it’s the most straightforward path in a rotating system. Rotating, seen from outside.

It’s a coriolispathway of that rotating gravitational system.

To go straight forward and outside the influence of the gravitational field, you must have a centripetal acceleration. Because when you accelerate straightforward from your reference point of view in that field, you will circle around the heavy object. And you ‘think’ you go straightforward.



The fictional train driver from Steven Hawking who travels near light speed thinks he reaches the speed of light on Earth, but he goes in circles and strange spirals seen from without our Solar System.
This train driver thinks that he is forming ‘straightforward pathways’ in the universe. But these are all curved, spiral and will move in strange helical motions, seen from another point of view.
The system that you ‘use’ as reference point, gives you the glasses to see what it means from there to see another observer to go ‘straightforward’ according to his measurements (ideas) of curved and straight paths.
(and no Big Bang is needed to explain the expanding universe with this theory)

Yours sincerely
Maarten Vergucht
Belgium
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The astronaut could not see the train and the spirals do not mean anything anyway. The rest of your post is gibberish Goodbye.
Click to expand...
 
Maartenn100 said:
Hy pixel 42.

I was talking about my theory.
Click to expand...
The theory which says that clocks which undergo acceleration by being sent into space and returned will show less time passed than clocks which remain on earth has been proved correct. So any theory which predicts that they will show the same time passed when the one sent into space returns has been proved wrong. If the latter is what your theory predicts (it's hard to be sure, but I think that's what you're saying) then it's already been proved wrong and need not detain us any further.
 
Pixel42 said:
The theory which says that clocks which undergo acceleration by being sent into space and returned will show less time passed than clocks which remain on earth has been proved correct. So any theory which predicts that they will show the same time passed when the one sent into space returns has been proved wrong. If the latter is what your theory predicts (it's hard to be sure, but I think that's what you're saying) then it's already been proved wrong and need not detain us any further.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It is difficult to understand what he's getting at,with the spiralling trains and whatnot. I saw your pic on facebook Maarten. Do you drink in the Muse? I've seen you somewhere I think.
 
Last edited:
ok, than the idea that the twin brothers would have the same age is totally wrong. ok.


If the latter is what your theory predicts (it's hard to be sure, but I think that's what you're saying) then it's already been proved wrong and need not detain us any further.
Click to expand...

That's not what my theory predicts.

Because my hypothesis (I see it as postulates and another interpretation)
is that:

because of the timedifference (gravitational timedilation) there is been measured motion.

And that's a fact. That's not even a theory. That's a fact. You can measure a moving Earth, relative to you, when you are outside the gravitational field. You can measure a moving Earth around the sun, once you are outside the Solar system. These are measurements of the movements of that same object, given that frame of reference. Given your new position in that field.


Exactly. It is difficult to understand what he's getting at,with the spiralling trains and what not
Click to expand...

I know it can be difficult to understand.

This is what I mean:

you can go to youtube (I may not post an url right now untill I have at least 15 posts)

and type on 'youtube':
Earth Rotation & Revolution around a moving Sun

These are different 'frames of reference' in the field. And imagine a train moving on Earth. All these moves will be different given a different reference point in the field.

And you can think that the traindriver and the people on Earth are thinking that this train is trying to come near reaching the speed of light. Their idea of 'straightforward acceleration' their idea...

Do you see the 'spiral motion' of the Earth, Dafydd? Do you? YES OR NO?
I'm waiting for an answer Dafydd!! Yes or no?
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
ok, than the idea that the twin brothers would have the same age is totally wrong. ok.
Click to expand...

Progress. I'm sorry that I got shirty with you,but you are the latest in a long line of posters here who were going to overturn relativity by posting ill-informed speculation. It's hard to deal with them patiently.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
ok, than the idea that the twin brothers would have the same age is totally wrong. ok.




Because my hypothesis (I see it as postulates and another interpretation)
is that

because of the timedifference (gravitational timedilation) there is been measured motion.

And that's a fact. That's not even a theory. That's a fact. You can measure a moving Earth, relative to you, when you are outside the gravitational field. You can measure a moving Earth around the sun, once you are outside the Solar system. These are measurements of the movements of that same object, given that frame of reference.



I know it can be difficult to understand.

This is what I mean:
Click to expand...
The highlighted part is certainly correct. You can "measure" the moving Earth from the Space Shuttle or from the Moon,both of which are in the gravitational field of the Earth. Your point makes no sense.

"because of the time difference (gravitational timedilation) there is been measured motion."
What that is supposed to mean is anyones guess. It's no use using these big scientific words if you don't know what they mean.
 
because of the time difference (gravitational timedilation) there is been measured motion."
What that is supposed to mean is anyones guess. It's no use using these big scientific words if you don't know what they mean.
Click to expand...

different clocks, different measurement of motion.
 
Anyone unfamiliar with Maarten I'll give fair warning: He's been doing this 'gravitational relativism' thing on flemish skeptics forums as well and recently got a 2 week 'cool off'-ban/probation for posting things like this. It was bunk in dutch and I dont expect to be less bunk in a different language.
 
Espacially for Dafydd:

type in on 'youtube':

Earth Rotation & Revolution around a moving Sun

These are different 'frames of reference' in the field. And imagine a train moving on Earth. All these moves will be different given a different reference point in the field.

And you can think that the traindriver and the people on Earth are thinking that this train is trying to come near reaching the speed of light. Their idea of 'straightforward acceleration' their idea...

Do you see the 'spiral motion' of the Earth, Dafydd? Do you? YES OR NO?
We are all waiting for an answer Dafydd!!

Only: Yes or no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom